My understanding is that you were still limited to a 1-of-N for the fraud proofs anyway.
(trying a second time.. sorry if this answer repeats)
It's 1 of n operators for *liveness* of exit. But the 1 of n honesty is only on the signing committee at setup, for covenant emulation. There's no 1 of n honesty assumption in the fraud proof part, in bitvm2 (otherwise you could ditch all the machinery and just ask for an n of n multisig! - which is exactly what clementine is allowing as an optimistic route). That's my point (I also wrote a delving post yesterday, Ekrembal wrote a response, I think it's kinda interesting. I don't see how his argument holds up.
It's 1 of n operators for *liveness* of exit. But the 1 of n honesty is only on the signing committee at setup, for covenant emulation. There's no 1 of n honesty assumption in the fraud proof part, in bitvm2 (otherwise you could ditch all the machinery and just ask for an n of n multisig! - which is exactly what clementine is allowing as an optimistic route). That's my point (I also wrote a delving post yesterday, Ekrembal wrote a response, I think it's kinda interesting. I don't see how his argument holds up.
2❤️1
