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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E56C000A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:10:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDD54EC27
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:10:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8PWE0QMnMqyr
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:10:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40130.protonmail.ch (mail-40130.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.130])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B80674EC1F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:10:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:09:56 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1615875004;
bh=FW2MdUsd1rGwCcSgCHFZ2Ouhc95UufsJ1FzQPe0+BZc=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=Js01VNXbUN64vCv4iHvb8db3dMas/MlKt9JCtgpneKeiPpb0MJkf4tjIpDEFEXFIH
12H2wz1WrF4Ux7H6UU/UJ5U3pYVa+l6AltGycfNFgBAB1y1L8AjfPm6iuqm94zowFf
TpxZt5bLGZMn1QgYQ00u41QsgVmB5vrGexmlD100=
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <plFEi9xoSnZ0TDJ7wH2dJx1F727FCSBrPsa2-26AXtveHKolt9bzTE1tiGIoPSjhgBfToVID2YHEaMGwwVU5dZ3Sozmz9UO-6HvbEDmm67I=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhC1Y13p7KazfUOXFZ5vi5MA9EQ-scyafv4aNkjskoXBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhhC1Y13p7KazfUOXFZ5vi5MA9EQ-scyafv4aNkjskoXBg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Delegated signatures in Bitcoin within existing
rules, no fork required
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:10:09 -0000
Good morning Jeremy,
This is a very cool idea!
> Multiple Delegates: By signing a txn with several delegate outputs, it is=
possible to enforce multiple disparate conditions. Normally this is superf=
luous -- why not just concatenate S1 and S2? The answer is that you may hav=
e S1 require a relative height lock and S2 require a relative time lock (th=
is was one of the mechanisms investigated for powswap.com).
I am somewhat confused by this.
Do you mean that the delegating transaction (the one signed using the scrip=
t of A with `SIGHASH_NONE`) has as input (consumes) multiple delegate outpu=
ts D1, D2... with individual scripts S1, S2... ?
> Sequenced Contingent Delegation: By constructing a specific TXID that may=
delegate the coins, you can make a coin's delegation contingent on some ot=
her contract reaching a specific state. For example, suppose I had a contra=
ct that had 100 different possible end states, all with fixed outpoints at =
the end. I could delegate coins in different arrangements to be claimable o=
nly if the contract reaches that state. Note that such a model requires som=
e level of coordination between the main and observing contract as each Coi=
n delegate can only be claimed one time.
Does this require that each contract end-state have a known TXID at setup t=
ime?
> Redelegating: This is where A delegates to S, S delegates to S'. This typ=
e of mechanism most likely requires the coin to be moved on-chain to the sc=
ript (A OR S or S'), but the on-chain movement may be delayed (via presigne=
d transactions) until S' actually wants to do something with the coin.
The script `A || S || S'` suggests that delegation effectively still allows=
the original owner to still control the coin, right?
Which I suppose is implied by "Revocation" above.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
