Time to add CSFS to Signet?

[Weikeng Chen]

I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, CSFS isn't.

With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further.

Thanks,

Weikeng

[Antoine Poinsot]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it received "a lot" of support, but it did receive some and i agree it would be nice to have both opcodes being discussed on Signet.

The PR adding it to inquisition last year as part of LNHANCE was abandoned and closed a few months ago. Greg Sanders recently opened a WIP pull request to add CSFS on its own: https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/pull/72.

This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further.

Looking forward to see some of that.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com.

[/dev /fd0]

Hi Weikeng,

I agree that it has a lot of support among bitcoin developers. No objections for CSFS on [wiki][0]with evaluations from more than 50 bitcoin developers.

Co-author of APO, Christian Decker has also expressed his support for it on [twitter][1]. Even Greg Maxwell considers it [useful][2].

[0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support

[1]: https://x.com/Snyke/status/1895880013796556818

[2]: https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/bitcoin-wizards/2019-11-28

/dev/fd0

floppy disk guy

--

[moonsettler]

Hi Weikeng,

CSFS is on signet. All the LNhance opcodes are on mutinynet.
https://github.com/lnhance/mutinynet-bitcoin/tree/mutinynet-cat-ln-hance
https://faucet.mutinynet.com/

[signet]
signetchallenge=512102f7561d208dd9ae99bf497273e16f389bdbd6c4742ddb8e6b216e64fa2928ad8f51ae
addnode=45.79.52.207:38333
dnsseed=0
signetblocktime=30

BR,
moonsettler


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

[Weikeng Chen]

Moonsettler, 

I can see that LNHANCE has already had a live "mutinynet" working as a functional network for testing.

Do you think it is still necessary to add it to the "signet" signet or just wait until more progress with CTV + CSFS on the bitcoin/bitcoin repository as PRs and then to testnet?

Thanks,

Weikeng

[moonsettler]

Hi Weikeng,

I'm obviously not opposed to the idea, just not sure what makes one signet more significant than an other?
The important thing is, there is a signet up and running for protocol devs to test things out on and for people to use as playground.

Now activating LNhance on a testnet would be more fun.

BR,
moonsettler


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/5f34bdb6-8088-4501-8116-99e2f182b929n%40googlegroups.com.

[Greg Sanders]

Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet is not BIP348 compliant. How much that matters for experimenters, I am not sure.

I opened a PR to inquisition to rectify the lack of BIP348-compatible PRs, at a minimum.

Greg

[Greg Sanders]

Correct.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:54 AM moonsettler <moons...@protonmail.com> wrote:

Hi Greg,

> Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet is not BIP348 compliant.

Wdym not compliant? Because it also has CSFSV?

BR,
moonsetler

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cfaa1df8-44bb-4d1a-9e3b-3f390421a23cn%40googlegroups.com.

[moonsettler]

Hi Greg,

> Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet is not BIP348 compliant.

Wdym not compliant? Because it also has CSFSV?

BR,
moonsetler

On Monday, March 24th, 2025 at 2:29 AM, Greg Sanders <gsand...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cfaa1df8-44bb-4d1a-9e3b-3f390421a23cn%40googlegroups.com.