Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.50; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qg0-f50.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: adam.back@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <5435FD3D.40409@gmail.com>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CABbpET8_FMCcnh0dELnHsYmF+YP05Gz=nZ3SPkLZuqXYV3JUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator>
	<201410031750.27323.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CANEZrP1eGi-AHgciQiKUuUB7WwqKsMOyTjCQAAO=RWEkPC2Uiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0NRNEQLqA2E=ysXsKw6hWS-H9X_AFYK4ckC4-_Bk=qbSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141004003850.GA23202@muck>
	<CANEZrP0_jDouDCLn9BvxUd7UYiZLbVsaGGkkxwjcOYxZryBDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0Q8g9KYRbAvCV=35x5Rb5HFnrNkrwwMZ=Mv-namMEPpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2Xp7ene+KDw_L_YnNW=hDt9K-UigvZ6PLb3oUviOr_Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJC2v+g-SWvqdaD2Fb7bb4DkWTtp+e4QNRGvCo1QtraFnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5435FD3D.40409@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 07:14:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTHN4G1HO-7_0Fot943KK-GGOfK9gXDBqaKyyRngiXbuFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent
 a txout from being spent until an expiration time
Precedence: list

I think you can do everything with the existing script level nlocktime
in some kind of turing completeness sense (maybe); but there is a
complexity cost that often you have to resort to extra dependent
transaction(s) (and work-around malleability until that is fully
fixed) just to get the effect.

When I tried building things that need nlocktime I found it quite
inconvenient that it was wasnt a function rather than a script
property, so I like this proposal.

Adam

On 9 October 2014 04:13, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, I really like this proposal.  I haven't spent much time thinking
> about the deeper subtleties and risks associated with it, but I see a lot of
> opportunities.  One just came to mind that I didn't see mentioned in his
> original proposal:
>
> Non-Interactive Recurring payments with ID-association:
> You want to make N recurring payments of 1 BTC each month to a service.
> Sign N transactions each of them use a CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY block number
> approximately X months in the future (one for each month).   The script
> allows the customer to move the coins at any time, but after the locktime
> the merchant/service has signing access.  The merchant software will
> continually watch for and sweep all coins that become available via this
> mechanism and credit the appropriate customer account.  The customer
> maintains control of the funds until payment time, the merchant can
> automatically collect it each month without requiring user interaction, and
> the customer can cancel it just by spending it elsewhere before the
> locktime.
>
> This scheme has an added benefit:  both the merchant's address and the
> user's address is in the script.  Given an appropriate scheme for linking
> addresses to accounts (perhaps sending the service a watch-only BIP32
> branch), the service can use the other address in the script to recognize
> and link that payment to the user's account.  This allows you to continue
> paying and extending your subscription without having to explicitly link
> each payment to the account.  The wallet will simply make sure to use a
> return address that is in a BIP32 branch that was provided to the service
> during signup, and the service will automatically extend your subscription
> every month based on that info when it sweeps payments.
>
> Along with everything else that was mentioned by Peter in his original
> proposal, I see OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY as an enabling feature, not just a
> simple improvement.
>
> -Alan
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2014 06:26 AM, Wladimir wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>
> That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request.
>
> That's certainly a useful improvement. It won't help the existing userbase
> though - assuming CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is to go in to the next major release.
>
> The next minor release (0.9.4) could have Gavin's change already.
>
> I don't think CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY will make it into the next major
> release though. Once headers-first and pruning is merged (which is
> expected to be a matter of weeks). I'd like to split off the 0.10
> branch and give it some time to stabilize with a feature freeze, then
> do a release before the end of the year.
>
> So 0.11, in say 6 months, would be soonest.
>
> Wladimir
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>