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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C321BF46
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f195.google.com (mail-ua0-f195.google.com
[209.85.217.195])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FDEB177
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f195.google.com with SMTP id i3-v6so15959556uad.4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 May 2018 16:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=Ybv9frSWq8MbeiG4jJuKWDMNK3hQOxzHr3+4SHcUbwo=;
b=aLlOIVTXPPH6tdKHb5cDBefMfOuWiib0ysto80DJlJ9mxNgrETwh/lnIG/dQVeOrr4
jDMQgMtVYUi483lUfaOPj325EXICh+RlnH7CENYBBdZRyGLn8U7uhZP7NjhThJSPOTG6
8BK4+ooQfJLQuJhODjEquYsJWZ8SKtlo4jqXdSPF43RmG1H+FSbawD3b6xFGHWz0olDm
Phu8XQ6PNtpUPc40HODS67MPEmsu/XFnnWc6YHyLZXxPnFJBdB3oe8L2hr2MWICPz1Vg
NS43/BSIsMyBUJxha1XkkZ625YUOn+0C01v7B3AnpYLTkyljlnnfpG/MSNwvmeWoj7YM
h2CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=Ybv9frSWq8MbeiG4jJuKWDMNK3hQOxzHr3+4SHcUbwo=;
b=MBZAkwKNXXoDRW8x0xXDpSaZvWb4de9QkPAQ73/SnQmAyRvIxyNe7QeumefMEe+RLz
Az2h6ZmbHgBwc7krvQYHZAfdmWHyffIphn2VtP/mwIGDnGLT/jNBb1OkxHs/Mmg9lQDP
dLZCTtk7V7ZVtBJhUseSVvw2vS2AmgrP48C3z0iVsc0imY1pK9OYaux52nucMbdhfLWj
tXgQP1FR4HVFKQy6/dG7ThV10ct32/DjQ6qr807KbSyh9Hk43DbkeSBrHBv+w+hR4gw+
YLeeyeYE7SvkZDwAiQ+rWDqOz/Hh7OCv5luay659vjLs0A4srHL4WVRhsPR1uICk5iDr
8hBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfv4Lq3KriOCxYZ1XbaqcsZBaVhGxfgrp7b/dO4vrfGV6+DlcN4
fwDuJn37DZzMeXvXrxMq+sNcE/NMTJY/DNZDPMQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp9qdMethZP/WatESjXDrwzsiFyjlEPuDOdbCciSRz1BYKdbe50HKZXkk7j9//hnKMT7jsADlBU1Hcy11udpWQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1b6c:: with SMTP id
n44-v6mr3373833uai.194.1527119109544;
Wed, 23 May 2018 16:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a67:5184:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:45:09
-0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1-DTzKct-NU9TotxDve8vLe5HFYxHZbq+t_A69C1nL-PA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgKY-nmL=x+LVubtB0fFBAwd-1CDHT7zhidX8p9DLSGyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M1-DTzKct-NU9TotxDve8vLe5HFYxHZbq+t_A69C1nL-PA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:09 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3DjwXmQ3s9g3Y13ep83VWJsGiRw
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRnd8WDPYturJZk5T-Q8KVbr4ZVOHq4s-UDOwL0KnBuRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Should Graftroot be optional?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:10 -0000
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Consider for example a P2SH address for some fund, where you create a
> transaction in advance. Even if the parties involved in signing the
> transaction would agree (collude), the original intent of this particular
> P2SH address may be to hold the fund accountable by enforcing some given
> rules by script. To be able to circumvent the rules could break the purpose
> of the fund.
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your example.
If graftroot were possible it would mean that the funds were paid to a
public key. That holder(s) of the corresponding private key could
sign without constraint, and so the accoutability you're expecting
wouldn't exist there regardless of graftroot.
I think maybe your example is only making the case that it should be
possible to send funds constrained by a script without a public key
ever existing at all. If so, I agree-- but that wasn't the question
here as I understood it.
|
