path: root/23/dfb758d87a93ff164aafb8fbfb16136ad10c94

Return-Path: <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F41AC0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:55:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29630400DD
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:55:20 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 29630400DD
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=TnJuQclo
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id A_h7DTuOKmcx
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:55:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org D6825408DD
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6825408DD
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:55:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id h8so6059595ede.8
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 13 Mar 2023 07:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678719317;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=K0L8AhI21nwzW6ZEwh/smDr3Gah94fAucrA9tw314KU=;
 b=TnJuQclosd/I38DB3Z0U0l0/gQTFnGioN/9h44PnE1eBuXdFvNaNNbo/cJJb5m5cH8
 A1erTu0zuVtwA/NTpZH8jkumGeeUEFms/r+8/mRYJMTL8hnxaFVBllaVaPKXwG3E41xd
 nsrGbvlI6/Lk0S6mV8Q1hHVPlXg8dnj62hIhyXhvQg9BJK49y/jBVqcvSzYiGDK4DYDi
 h2Udd8+rNyZ59SREFrtA+bbIkRRXXNTipPQ9djT9pacD1xHsL8hVjMGvC9Zp7cHouUa+
 WDY/6J7tN/QGxJY0/AxMmVm8wCDVVpE9iZL7WPOdP6sS9bjWM9zYkqzcHZ4DbQIxqd7H
 o/gQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678719317;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
 :reply-to;
 bh=K0L8AhI21nwzW6ZEwh/smDr3Gah94fAucrA9tw314KU=;
 b=lS0z7grARTs8u3MGLdwUsCKvonaw9n0LFQAe5Kh4QWXlfemWoCQ50KKEC6J74f69he
 wk07yMtXtNfNsXNmV/qtrycQFo+Heml+MrO5SWGRMO5WSpFMlQBEkMVq7edex3SJ9Kn4
 bclQdHuzRmliJJNi/C9e49TFWeJFhmW8GnD+A8sE+wRQ41tLt76J4x2UNY2CtUG8C4RN
 ROhmb30owgNfHdzpewGWz3LqrVz79avXJx2+AhstNiCUCBeQ/h2AjzEWcf5hDAp94pOp
 7aXlyU97T5dfj63Bgur5V6l+0CD9HE4cjR7lTSt1CYX/CvHX6nCXyq+8lGn9L9sbJ6ds
 xD1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXmhcBHkKXDpI5c2znbV0s+aU0hxcN6GCDnNNtdr/zhjl1q8lTr
 LGYw5fCppAxR5U05nCAUTfujjJgXweRSxBmkR3Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8uPovTCqczoTU/6uv1P6rFBBK251oDVgK9+/s4erGXrtjWHgHfO9/BVHv0bKxsT6oOXQoWWgeZbtMr5PKNzWc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:13c2:b0:8b1:7aec:c8e6 with SMTP id
 g2-20020a17090613c200b008b17aecc8e6mr18163454ejc.2.1678719316693; Mon, 13 Mar
 2023 07:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPfvXfJQKb7i8GBvTEvTTz-3dU_5mH8jOv8Nm4Q8gPt=KxrqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4652dbe8-6647-20f2-358e-be0ef2e52c47@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <4652dbe8-6647-20f2-358e-be0ef2e52c47@dashjr.org>
From: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:55:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB3F3DtitOkV=KGGJjtet=YHJYbfj0KWVYRNKDWwyecRCBC=2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c95ed05f6c94c59"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP for OP_VAULT
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:55:20 -0000

--0000000000008c95ed05f6c94c59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Luke,

Can you elaborate why the current idealized functionality of deposit ->
trigger -> withdrawal is too complicated for
everyday use but the above deposit -> withdrawal ->
resolve(claim/clawback)  wouldn't be? I admit at a high level
it's a fine paradigm, but in practice would end

Let's ignore implementation for the discussion, since that's in flux.

Cheers,
Greg

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 3:53=E2=80=AFPM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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 theor=
y
> >   usable today.
> >
> > * Specific output locations are no longer hardcoded in any of the
> >   transaction validation algorithms. This means that the proposal is no=
w
> >   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.med=
iawiki
> >
> > 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 an=
d
> > Greg for all the advice.
> >
> > James
> >
> > [0]:
> >
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/0213=
18.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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--0000000000008c95ed05f6c94c59
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Luke,</div><div><br></div>Can you elaborate why th=
e current idealized functionality of deposit=C2=A0-&gt; trigger -&gt; withd=
rawal is too complicated for<div>everyday use but the above deposit -&gt; w=
ithdrawal -&gt; resolve(claim/clawback)=C2=A0 wouldn&#39;t be? I admit at a=
 high level</div><div>it&#39;s a fine paradigm, but in practice would end=
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Let&#39;s ignore implementation for the dis=
cussion, since that&#39;s in flux.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><d=
iv>Greg</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D=
"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 3:53=E2=80=AFPM Luke Dashjr via bitcoi=
n-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20=
4,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I started reviewing the BIP, but stopped part =
way through, as it seems <br>
to have a number of conceptual issues.<br>
<br>
I left several comments on the PR <br>
(<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421#pullrequestreview-133=
5925575" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bi=
ps/pull/1421#pullrequestreview-1335925575</a>), <br>
but ultimately I think it isn&#39;t simplified enough for day-to-day use, <=
br>
and would harm privacy quite a bit.<br>
<br>
Instead, I would suggest a new approach where:<br>
<br>
1) Joe receives funds with a taproot output like normal.<br>
2) Joe sends funds to Fred, but Fred cannot spend them until N blocks <br>
later (covenant-enforced relative locktime). Ideally, this should <br>
use/support a taproot keypath spend somehow. It would be nice to blind <br>
the particular relative locktime somehow too, but that may be too expensive=
.<br>
2b) If Joe&#39;s funds were stolen, Joe can spend Fred&#39;s UTXO within th=
e N <br>
block window to a recovery output.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, the implementation details for this kind of setup are <br>
non-obvious and will likely require yet another address format (or at <br>
least recipient-wallet changes), but certainly seems within the scope of <b=
r>
possibility.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/13/23 16:09, James O&#39;Beirne via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; Since the last related correspondence on this list [0], a number of<br=
>
&gt; improvements have been made to the OP_VAULT draft [1]:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; * There is no longer a hard dependence on package relay/ephemeral<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 anchors for fee management. When using &quot;authorized recover=
y,&quot; all<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 vault-related transactions can be bundled with unrelated inputs=
 and<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 outputs, facilitating fee management that is self contained to =
the<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 transaction. Consequently, the contents of this proposal are in=
 theory<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 usable today.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; * Specific output locations are no longer hardcoded in any of the<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 transaction validation algorithms. This means that the proposal=
 is now<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 compatible with future changes like SIGHASH_GROUP, and<br>
&gt; =C2=A0 transaction shapes for vault operations are more flexible.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ---<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve written a BIP that fully describes the proposal here:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/jamesob/bips/blob/jamesob-23-02-opvault/=
bip-vaults.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.c=
om/jamesob/bips/blob/jamesob-23-02-opvault/bip-vaults.mediawiki</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The corresponding PR is here:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421" rel=3D"noreferre=
r" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; My next steps will be to try for a merge to the inquisition repo.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Thanks to everyone who has participated so far, but especially to AJ a=
nd<br>
&gt; Greg for all the advice.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; James<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; [0]: <br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/202=
3-January/021318.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021318.html</a><br>
&gt; [1]: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26857" rel=3D"=
noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26857=
</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000008c95ed05f6c94c59--