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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011F2C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AD481B71
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
autolearn=no 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 7dPgdp4eGsrw
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B089819D2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1mSKf3-0004U7-92; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:52:50 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:52:46 +1000
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:52:46 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210920145246.GB21263@erisian.com.au>
References: <20210909064138.GA22496@erisian.com.au>
<CALZpt+FnnbGJC4=KO_OPiKxt0Ey9Bzh1gxP1dQSDz2aBi9WyOA@mail.gmail.com>
<20210911032644.GB23578@erisian.com.au>
<CALZpt+HzM__OJntegOhDqkg5zU=PQXtKgQoB518A2qP9=foovw@mail.gmail.com>
<20210915065051.GA26119@erisian.com.au>
<CALZpt+Hczvy1Fxu40cCKKC8bR9fouQ+sAiqV65-Z4VuLp+Bi7w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+Hczvy1Fxu40cCKKC8bR9fouQ+sAiqV65-Z4VuLp+Bi7w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TAPLEAF_UPDATE_VERIFY covenant opcode
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: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:52:54 -0000
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:11:10AM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote:
> I think one design advantage of combining scope-minimal opcodes like MERKLESUB
> with sighash malleability is the ability to update a subset of the off-chain
> contract transactions fields after the funding phase.
Note that it's not "update" so much as "add to"; and I mostly think
graftroot (and friends), or just updating the utxo onchain, are a better
general purpose way of doing that. It's definitely a tradeoff though.
> Yes this is a different contract policy that I would like to set up.
> Let's say you would like to express the following set of capabilities.
> C0="Split the 4 BTC funds between Alice/Bob and Caroll/Dave"
> C1="Alice can withdraw 1 BTC after 2 weeks"
> C2="Bob can withdraw 1 BTC after 2 weeks"
> C3="Caroll can withdraw 1 BTC after 2 weeks"
> C4="Dave can withdraw 1 BTC after 2 weeks"
> C5="If USDT price=X, Alice can withdraw 2 BTC or Caroll can withdraw 2 BTC"
Hmm, I'm reading C5 as "If an oracle says X, and Alice and Carol agree,
they can distribute all the remaining funds as they see fit".
> If C4 is exercised, to avoid trust in the remaining counterparty, both Alice or
> Caroll should be able to conserve the C5 option, without relying on the updated
> key path.
> As you're saying, as we know the group in advance, one way to setup the tree
> could be:
> (A, (((((B, C), BC), D), BCD), ((((E, F), EF), G), EFG)))
Make it:
(((AB, (A,B)), (CD, (C,D))), ACO)
AB = DROP <alice+bob> DUP 0 6 TLUV CHECKSIGVERIFY IN_OUT_AMOUNT SUB 2BTC LESSTHAN
CD = same but for carol+dave
A = <alice> DUP <B'> 10 TLUV CHECKSIGVERIFY IN_OUT_AMOUNT SUB 1BTC LESSTHAN
B' = <bob> DUP 0 2 TLUV CHECKSIGVERIFY IN_OUT_AMOUNT SUB 1BTC LESSTHAN
B,C,D = same as A but for bob, etc
A',C',D' = same as B' but for alice, etc
ACO = <alice+carol> CHECKSIGVERIFY <oracle> CHECKSIG
Probably AB, CD, A..D, A'..D' all want a CLTV delay in there as well.
(Relative timelocks would probably be annoying for everyone who wasn't
the first to exit the pool)
> Note, this solution isn't really satisfying as the G path isn't neutralized on
> the Caroll/Dave fork and could be replayed by Alice or Bob...
I think the above fixes that -- when AB is spent it deletes itself and
the (A,B) pair; when A is spent, it deletes (A, B and AB) and replaces
them with B'; when B' is spent it just deletes itself.
Cheers,
aj
|
