Bitcoin PIPEs v2

The structural nuances between BitVM and its PIPE variant highlight differences in their operational frameworks concerning the timing of witness fixation. In BitVM's approach, various components like garbling, label commitments, and the zero-knowledge consistency proof are constructed without the necessity to know the actual input, w. This characteristic allows BitVM to be witness agnostic during its setup phase, offering flexibility in its operation.

On the other hand, BitVM PIPE introduces a deviation by incorporating the value h, which is the hash of w, directly into the PIPE instance. This requirement mandates that the operator must have prior knowledge of w at the time of setup. Despite this variance in setup prerequisites, both systems maintain identical mechanics regarding optimistic verification and dispute resolution processes. This implies that the core functionalities related to verification and disputes are unaffected by how and when the witness information is fixed.

A query arises concerning BitVM's emulation of covenants through pre-signing transactions and subsequently deleting the keys. The question points to a perceived inconsistency: given that in the BitVM framework, w is not predetermined, it necessitates a collaborative effort from the signing committee for co-signing per operator update. This collaboration is essential to accommodate updates, underlining a potential departure from the initial idea where transactions could be pre-signed without prior knowledge of w. This aspect calls for further clarification to reconcile the apparent discrepancy with BitVM's fundamental principles.