The following mitzvah is a transgression in circumcision.

Where does this question come from? And is the godfather the one who can decree things about people? And even Tima made his godfatherhood conditional on this, so the covenant was made without a godfather. So what? There is no obligation to have a godfather. In the mitzvah that follows a sin, it does seem that blood sacrifice would be required because the act of the covenant is invalidated. Although this depends on the words of the Manach regarding sitting in a stolen sukkah. The Toss asked why a verse was required to invalidate a stolen sukkah, and it was explained to him that this is a mitzvah that follows a sin. And the Manach explains that if there were no verse, then the man did not have a mitzvah, but he still did not eat outside the sukkah. The verse invalidates the sukkah. According to his view, there is room to argue that the mitzvah is indeed invalidated, but the covenant is kosher. However, most of the latter disagreed on the Manach, and the Manach itself also distinguishes between a sukkah and a covenant. There, it is about the act of the mitzvah within the sukkah, and here, it is about the creation of the covenant itself. Finally, although I didn't check to the end, it seems that the KGB needs blood transfusions.