Message-ID: <4652dbe8-6647-20f2-358e-be0ef2e52c47@dashjr.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 15:53:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
To: James O'Beirne <james.obeirne@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPfvXfJQKb7i8GBvTEvTTz-3dU_5mH8jOv8Nm4Q8gPt=KxrqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPfvXfJQKb7i8GBvTEvTTz-3dU_5mH8jOv8Nm4Q8gPt=KxrqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP for OP_VAULT
Precedence: list

I started reviewing the BIP, but stopped part way through, as it seems 
to have a number of conceptual issues.

I left several comments on the PR 
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421#pullrequestreview-1335925575), 
but ultimately I think it isn't simplified enough for day-to-day use, 
and would harm privacy quite a bit.

Instead, I would suggest a new approach where:

1) Joe receives funds with a taproot output like normal.
2) Joe sends funds to Fred, but Fred cannot spend them until N blocks 
later (covenant-enforced relative locktime). Ideally, this should 
use/support a taproot keypath spend somehow. It would be nice to blind 
the particular relative locktime somehow too, but that may be too expensive.
2b) If Joe's funds were stolen, Joe can spend Fred's UTXO within the N 
block window to a recovery output.

Unfortunately, the implementation details for this kind of setup are 
non-obvious and will likely require yet another address format (or at 
least recipient-wallet changes), but certainly seems within the scope of 
possibility.

Thoughts?

Luke


On 2/13/23 16:09, James O'Beirne via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Since the last related correspondence on this list [0], a number of
> improvements have been made to the OP_VAULT draft [1]:
>
> * There is no longer a hard dependence on package relay/ephemeral
>   anchors for fee management. When using "authorized recovery," all
>   vault-related transactions can be bundled with unrelated inputs and
>   outputs, facilitating fee management that is self contained to the
>   transaction. Consequently, the contents of this proposal are in theory
>   usable today.
>
> * Specific output locations are no longer hardcoded in any of the
>   transaction validation algorithms. This means that the proposal is now
>   compatible with future changes like SIGHASH_GROUP, and
>   transaction shapes for vault operations are more flexible.
>
> ---
>
> I've written a BIP that fully describes the proposal here:
>
> https://github.com/jamesob/bips/blob/jamesob-23-02-opvault/bip-vaults.mediawiki
>
> The corresponding PR is here:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421
>
> My next steps will be to try for a merge to the inquisition repo.
>
> Thanks to everyone who has participated so far, but especially to AJ and
> Greg for all the advice.
>
> James
>
> [0]: 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021318.html
> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26857
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev