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. On Sunday, March 16th, 2025 at 11:38 PM, Weikeng Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/tTFTcI1mOB8uc9VsOtAzYOSa7wLkrC50Sy7sWwCffVtkwFNiS_74c97w3AxUzw62f8bQ66gPoU1iIu_cfqJlLJL7gds8Vr7DLdoAKE9Q-GI%3D%40protonmail.com.
