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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742B3C0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F470818BE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 4F470818BE
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=M1/Uxz3M
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, 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 smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 3Lqc2JNP86iC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 459E7818A7
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459E7818A7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:26 +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 AF99638AF3CF;
Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:23 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1678568004; bh=0BiUA+4jj63st8770Dx+ubG8stVI+BxWx/wD2OhXBHI=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To;
b=M1/Uxz3Mq82bl+BotupZhEHsyhqXviW+ae2VueuSuHesBIPxYXdU1nRmdkE/mYS6h
1POe36jisxQjvwnFr2+Wr8808vWWt41G9XapT7/cPlGM3A1duM8/AlNRcSptC0HlX1
a0d46hNQO1sfuW1k5RDI+ZjZIS2VyoSAoF66Ti+A=
Message-ID: <4652dbe8-6647-20f2-358e-be0ef2e52c47@dashjr.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 15:53:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.8.0
To: James O'Beirne <james.obeirne@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPfvXfJQKb7i8GBvTEvTTz-3dU_5mH8jOv8Nm4Q8gPt=KxrqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPfvXfJQKb7i8GBvTEvTTz-3dU_5mH8jOv8Nm4Q8gPt=KxrqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:27 -0000
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
|
