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
|
Return-Path: <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 889D3EED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 May 2018 09:32:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D7006DB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 May 2018 09:32:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j5-v6so3238202wme.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 May 2018 02:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=xWF2heBxKpqIW9QKb5IEqNb5AFUu67SCn4eMAeHllhQ=;
b=k9QKXDfSBngAxlr4lKfkHdBxVyv0wJ8M8DYQoelmbYqedyZPHOFjTCNthWEJCYLGEL
yndodS4ciVdlKf3o6NaPJVfTphBHqAHQNcmcOCRVF2XIK2fGIIB88M1B8rZosFR9MOpt
u2DdQzUgW3FYm8t2miJOl/PbXWy+W90zxOcIRMH8LFOx84/uGPxzOP9tNWginpkTWCVy
Al5ulr/g5dkAXWmi/Ac2KQMPWnSrlH6QtfLqlxiGYByhqxfWd5hdh32Udasdk1ExOAtU
R/03zYbC9IY5n6Nns0eeuhAjV0TIF+TS98mmG7sC1sTrxBVu2L5KgtyXGhqQ9TanYIfn
XJEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=xWF2heBxKpqIW9QKb5IEqNb5AFUu67SCn4eMAeHllhQ=;
b=odTTRQuoFxgSUo3nQya8yLEJGVUNt/K9zt3UipzFWrlU/Om11u0hbPTweOon0fXPE7
P+xBiHhyHWelAJ/xhj1/IWcSVEMSDKQGEKjxkSlPqBGyF4Vfs6hhYLgzXld8fTY5HOjg
z77NXL+ARFIyZuz62hOTqHMvxzPcxe0TKFi5c+Mqtf6V0/B0mu3MrTEhMCXlxN4BcVNz
ij8REbODMStdE+gYg1AdJlVuXwD3hv3S3WhhiUkypG0KHZ83k8xB3WcOj8lc1VZuu8tB
lpw2StZz3jRxCWwekkFBKDwpRNXmO8fsPTcH0GQB6/UC8YnW8Ccpty0D2n4kKMBOdxf/
c6ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfDhTOv/RoCJhvfIDZptOUFu6IAoAnkTXab2PNFBikUaF4jeyvb
Hm2zgfMb9ty35BZg2/MldtH2zyDQcUOydseJSVk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZomNeaAfLbIBQD3ANlhe9Cn+z5lEIpH3I3GQd6HvsZSLerZQheo5zk8ih/G1bt+XeVTYZXcazHJjcim/j8Siv4=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:cb01:: with SMTP id
g1-v6mr11192814edi.81.1527154355764;
Thu, 24 May 2018 02:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPg+sBgKY-nmL=x+LVubtB0fFBAwd-1CDHT7zhidX8p9DLSGyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M1-DTzKct-NU9TotxDve8vLe5HFYxHZbq+t_A69C1nL-PA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRnd8WDPYturJZk5T-Q8KVbr4ZVOHq4s-UDOwL0KnBuRA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRnd8WDPYturJZk5T-Q8KVbr4ZVOHq4s-UDOwL0KnBuRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:32:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAt2M19BMdD4SM1vOvt1pe+3dCspwFwECgk7ZEQFVHHA3Q_8Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e4820c056cf05471"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Thu, 24 May 2018 09:32:38 -0000
--000000000000e4820c056cf05471
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Den tor 24 maj 2018 01:45Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> skrev:
> 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.
>
I have to admit I not an expert on this field, so some of my concerns might
not be relevant. However, I think Wuille understood my points and his reply
answered my concerns quite well. I'm only asking for the optional ability
to prove you're not using these constructions (because some uses requires
committing to an immutable script), and that already seems to exist. So for
the future implementations I only ask that this ability is preserved.
I think such a proof don't need to be public (making such a proof in
private is probably often better), although optionally it might be. A
private contract wouldn't publish these details, while a public commitment
would do so.
>
--000000000000e4820c056cf05471
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
Den tor 24 maj 2018 01:45Gregory Maxwell <<a href=3D"mailto:greg@xiph.or=
g">greg@xiph.org</a>> skrev:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your example.<br>
<br>
If graftroot were possible it would mean that the funds were paid to a<br>
public key.=C2=A0 That holder(s) of the corresponding private key could<br>
sign without constraint, and so the accoutability you're expecting<br>
wouldn't exist there regardless of graftroot.<br>
<br>
I think maybe your example is only making the case that it should be<br>
possible to send funds constrained by a script without a public key<br>
ever existing at all.=C2=A0 If so, I agree-- but that wasn't the questi=
on<br>
here as I understood it.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">I have to admit I not an expert on this field, so s=
ome of my concerns might not be relevant. However, I think Wuille understoo=
d my points and his reply answered my concerns quite well. I'm only ask=
ing for the optional ability to prove you're not using these constructi=
ons (because some uses requires committing to an immutable script), and tha=
t already seems to exist. So for the future implementations I only ask that=
this ability is preserved.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">I think such a proof don't need to be public (making such a p=
roof in private is probably often better), although optionally it might be.=
A private contract wouldn't publish these details, while a public comm=
itment would do so.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>
--000000000000e4820c056cf05471--
|
