Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.54 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.54; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qa0-f54.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:49:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OVsQAya3RDzMTvKNK4hLGQVjFOp6Bseo=xK4ApOdPCh8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11351cce6a65b004f7e26da1
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP - Hash Locked Transaction
Precedence: list

--001a11351cce6a65b004f7e26da1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

As part of the atomic cross chain system, outputs need to be hash locked.

https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-0045.mediawiki

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949

A user needs to provide x corresponding to hash(x) in order to spend an
output.

Under the protocol, one of the participants is required to provide the
secret number in order to spend an output.  Once they do that, the other
participant can use the secret number to spend an output on the other
chain.  This provides a mechanism to link the 2 chains together (in
addition to lock times).  Once the first output is spent, that commits the
transfer.

This is half of the scripting operations required to implement the protocol.

The proposal is to make this an adder on to the other standard
transactions.  It does a check that the hash matches, and then runs the
standard transaction as normal.

Adding the prefix to a P2SH transactions wouldn't work, since the template
wouldn't match.

A script of this form could be embedded into a P2SH output.

I think that is ok, since embedding the "password" in the hashed script
gets all the benefits.

If there is agreement, I can code up the reference implementation as a PR.

--001a11351cce6a65b004f7e26da1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>As part of the atomic cross chain syst=
em, outputs need to be hash locked.<br><br><a href=3D"https://github.com/Ti=
erNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-0045.mediawiki">https://github.com/TierNolan/bi=
ps/blob/bip4x/bip-0045.mediawiki</a><br>
<br><a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D193281.msg2224949#=
msg2224949">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D193281.msg2224949#msg=
2224949</a><br><br></div><div>A user needs to provide x corresponding to ha=
sh(x) in order to spend an output.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Under the protocol, one of the participants is re=
quired to provide the secret number in order to spend an output.=C2=A0 Once=
 they do that, the other participant can use the secret number to spend an =
output on the other chain.=C2=A0 This provides a mechanism to link the 2 ch=
ains together (in addition to lock times).=C2=A0 Once the first output is s=
pent, that commits the transfer.<br>
<br>This is half of the scripting operations required to implement the prot=
ocol.<br></div></div><br></div>The proposal is to make this an adder on to =
the other standard transactions.=C2=A0 It does a check that the hash matche=
s, and then runs the standard transaction as normal.<br>
<br></div><div>Adding the prefix to a P2SH transactions wouldn&#39;t work, =
since the template wouldn&#39;t match.=C2=A0 <br><br>A script of this form =
could be embedded into a P2SH output.<br><br></div><div>I think that is ok,=
 since embedding the &quot;password&quot; in the hashed script gets all the=
 benefits.<br>
</div><br><div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div>If there is agreement, I=
 can code up the reference implementation as a PR.<br></div></div></div></d=
iv></div></div></div>

--001a11351cce6a65b004f7e26da1--