From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:07 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAE-z3OUE5AQAC2G4MtF=RVHwYEP1TKXTOopO14rmPiGkxC5MQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OUE5AQAC2G4MtF=RVHwYEP1TKXTOopO14rmPiGkxC5MQw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201404301859.07833.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP Draft: Atomic Cross Chain Transfer
	Protocol
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:03:59 PM Tier Nolan wrote:
> Due to "popular" demand, I have created a BIP for cross chain atomic
> transfers.
> 
> https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki

Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier for 
these transactions?

TX1 and TX2 *cannot* be signed until after TX0 is completely signed by both 
parties. After TX0 is signed, but before TX2 is signed, either party could 
walk away or otherwise hold the funds hostage. The sequence of signing 
proposed in this BIP is *not possible to perform*. How did you implement and 
test this? :/

What is the purpose of the OP_EQUAL_VERIFY in TX4? I don't see a use...

IMO, there should be separate BIPs for the exchange itself, and the protocol 
to negotiate the exchange. I would recommend changing the latter from JSON-RPC 
to some extension of the Payment Protocol, if possible.

Perhaps it would be good to only support compressed keys, to discourage use of 
uncompressed ones..

Luke