1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F93DC0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:55:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661E34045C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:55:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 661E34045C
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=QwH1Afb3
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
NICE_REPLY_A=-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 qjzQj-3108Yb
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org D74C44039D
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74C44039D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:55:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.77.250] (unknown [12.151.133.18])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C7E438AF4E0;
Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:55:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1678740902; bh=SfyVxN7MbWgVR+n0DmY/4Nfl/9dekqtJ50QpRBRREd0=;
h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To;
b=QwH1Afb3HmLQE23thforrX8wkBc0OJ+o1uizEDm++fSDDCpm8S6QUSWqPZG0NX81k
l2Ip7RJNjEZEAetDWBPSLiDBVw4hI9SzQcP2BUm+zlysvCjT74ggKkGz2ErltJTFaY
qtmk/WZ+kFaggzw+En8E972Xt8fF7MucqFKwrVns=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------gZxeyNDegAhbhfEoZY14Udsb"
Message-ID: <f2dba06f-6230-1093-32a5-8a426821ed8e@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:55:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPfvXfJQKb7i8GBvTEvTTz-3dU_5mH8jOv8Nm4Q8gPt=KxrqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4652dbe8-6647-20f2-358e-be0ef2e52c47@dashjr.org>
<CAB3F3DtitOkV=KGGJjtet=YHJYbfj0KWVYRNKDWwyecRCBC=2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB3F3DtTD4DeY33UCArRq-iNEt7D8tuT+daA5H-8aCVHz9FP4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAB3F3DtTD4DeY33UCArRq-iNEt7D8tuT+daA5H-8aCVHz9FP4g@mail.gmail.com>
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 20:55:06 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------gZxeyNDegAhbhfEoZY14Udsb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In ordinary use cases, you wouldn't clawback; that would only be in the
extreme case of the wallet being compromised. So typical usage would
just be receive -> send, like wallets currently do.
Luke
On 3/13/23 10:56, Greg Sanders wrote:
> Didn't finish sentence: but in practice would end up with pretty
> similar usage flows imho, and as noted in PR, would take a different
> wallet paradigm,
> among other technical challenges.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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 PM 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--------------gZxeyNDegAhbhfEoZY14Udsb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>In ordinary use cases, you wouldn't clawback; that would only be
in the extreme case of the wallet being compromised. So typical
usage would just be receive -> send, like wallets currently do.</p>
<p>Luke</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/13/23 10:56, Greg Sanders wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB3F3DtTD4DeY33UCArRq-iNEt7D8tuT+daA5H-8aCVHz9FP4g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Didn't finish sentence: but in practice would end
up with pretty similar usage flows imho, and as noted in PR,
would take a different wallet paradigm,
<div>among other technical challenges.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at
10:55 AM Greg Sanders <<a
href="mailto:gsanders87@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">gsanders87@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Luke,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Can you elaborate why the current idealized functionality of
deposit -> trigger -> withdrawal is too complicated
for
<div>everyday use but the above deposit -> withdrawal
-> resolve(claim/clawback) wouldn't be? I admit at a
high level</div>
<div>it's a fine paradigm, but in practice would end </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let's ignore implementation for the discussion, since
that's in flux.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Greg</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at
3:53 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);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="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421#pullrequestreview-1335925575"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421#pullrequestreview-1335925575</a>),
<br>
but ultimately I think it isn'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's funds were stolen, Joe can spend Fred's UTXO
within the 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 <br>
possibility.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/13/23 16:09, James O'Beirne via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> Since the last related correspondence on this list
[0], a number of<br>
> improvements have been made to the OP_VAULT draft
[1]:<br>
><br>
> * There is no longer a hard dependence on package
relay/ephemeral<br>
> anchors for fee management. When using "authorized
recovery," all<br>
> vault-related transactions can be bundled with
unrelated inputs and<br>
> outputs, facilitating fee management that is self
contained to the<br>
> transaction. Consequently, the contents of this
proposal are in theory<br>
> usable today.<br>
><br>
> * Specific output locations are no longer hardcoded
in any of the<br>
> transaction validation algorithms. This means that
the proposal is now<br>
> compatible with future changes like SIGHASH_GROUP,
and<br>
> transaction shapes for vault operations are more
flexible.<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
><br>
> I've written a BIP that fully describes the proposal
here:<br>
><br>
> <a
href="https://github.com/jamesob/bips/blob/jamesob-23-02-opvault/bip-vaults.mediawiki"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/jamesob/bips/blob/jamesob-23-02-opvault/bip-vaults.mediawiki</a><br>
><br>
> The corresponding PR is here:<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421</a><br>
><br>
> My next steps will be to try for a merge to the
inquisition repo.<br>
><br>
> Thanks to everyone who has participated so far, but
especially to AJ and<br>
> Greg for all the advice.<br>
><br>
> James<br>
><br>
> [0]: <br>
> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021318.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021318.html</a><br>
> [1]: <a
href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26857"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26857</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------gZxeyNDegAhbhfEoZY14Udsb--
|
