The design of OP_VAULT on the time of writing (April 2023) appears to be in flux and is not but finalized. Not like OP_CTV it is a recursive covenant opcode and the security of recursive covenants has been mentioned extensively on the bitcoin-dev mailing record. It should not pose a community threat or a DoS vector to a node verifying OP_VAULT guidelines (assuming it was activated on mainnet).
The axis that’s extra related to those extra restricted covenant opcodes is the utility axis relatively than the security axis i.e. when in comparison with competing options (SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, OP_TLUV, OP_TXHASH and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY and so forth) is that this the optimum proposal for enabling this type of perform ance? Burak posted
The design house for opcodes could be very giant and we won’t/should not allow each single potential opcode on mainnet. For extra rationalization on why see this put up. Therefore the main threat right here might be that nobody would find yourself utilizing it particularly if an alternate superior proposal was activated a while later. And having a barely inferior proposal lively onchain might impression whether or not that different superior proposal finally ends up getting activated in any respect. Therefore there are many components to contemplate and assuming we do not need to clog up the consensus guidelines with a number of unused opcodes we must be extraordinarily selective on what we find yourself activating on mainnet (ignoring the activation chain break up dangers which can be current with each tried activation).
There are dangers and trade-offs when assessing whether or not to make use of a specific vault design that would impression the utilization of a covenant opcode like OP_VAULT. A number of the dangers of utilizing the Revault vault design are mentioned right here. Nonetheless, these aren’t systemic dangers to the community, simply dangers to the person of a specific vault design.
edit (September 2023): A tweet thread on OP_VAULT by James O’Beirne is right here.
