📅 Original date posted:2018-09-06 📝 Original message:I feel it is breaking a ...

vizeet srivastava [ARCHIVE] /

npub1tzv…k75f

2023-06-07 18:14:39

in reply to nevent1q…ful6

📅 Original date posted:2018-09-06
📝 Original message:I feel it is breaking a principle that if a transaction is valid it remains
valid. There might be dangerous repercussions to breaking that rule. For
instance chain of transaction become invalid which might lead to losses.

On Thu 6 Sep, 2018, 6:37 PM Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa via bitcoin-dev, <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> We would like to propose a new BIP to extend OP_CSV (and/or OP_CLTV) in
> order for these to allow and interpret negative values. This way,
> taking the example shown in BIP 112:
>
> HASH160 <revokehash> EQUAL
> IF
> <Bob's pubkey>
> ELSE
> "24h" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP
> <Alice's pubkey>
> ENDIF
> CHECKSIG
>
> that gives ownership only to Bob for the first 24 hours and then to
> whichever spends first, we basically propose using the negative bit value:
>
> HASH160 <revokehash> EQUAL
> IF
> <Bob's pubkey>
> ELSE
> "-24h" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP
> <Alice's pubkey>
> ENDIF
> CHECKSIG
>
> meaning that both would have ownership for the first 24 hours, but
> after that only Bob would own such coins. Its implementation should
> not be too tedious, and in fact it simply implies considering negative
> values that are at the moment discarded as for the specification of
> BIP-112, leaving the sign bit unused.
>
> This, we argue, an increase the fairness of the users, and can at times
> be more cost-effective for users to do rather than trying a Replace-By-Fee
> transaction, should they want to modify such payment.
>
> We would like to have a discussion about this before proposing the
> BIP, for which we are preparing the text.
>
> You can find our paper discussing it here:
> https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-01867357 (find attached as well)
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa, Önder Gürcan and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180906/287712d4/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1tzvt67lcr8kvsyzajsapfnqxfhql29ks62d0wylvqne2m6uxdtts0jk75f

Seen on

wss://relay.noswhere.com

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:14:39

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "a55aca3dd6948d90139261a894845da9f091d678bc34ac234592be5a07630cd1", "pubkey": "5898bd7bf819ecc8105d943a14cc064dc1f516d0d29af713ec04f2adeb866ad7", "created_at": 1686161679, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "7426b9200a29d122a0f21fe5a36f46d2495e2e7ba790ae7045a12b6aede9e17c", "", "root" ], [ "e", "ea5873c7c78e74390cea0311f50f4c846cae2bc817b2b3cbf73a7f3dcb2f7d20", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "3f13f95f17b9c4f76e7ecdd71cb52d9f25fc4bd537140b3b4b287472635cfde0" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-09-06\n📝 Original message:I feel it is breaking a principle that if a transaction is valid it remains\nvalid. There might be dangerous repercussions to breaking that rule. For\ninstance chain of transaction become invalid which might lead to losses.\n\nOn Thu 6 Sep, 2018, 6:37 PM Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa via bitcoin-dev, \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hello everyone,\n\u003e\n\u003e We would like to propose a new BIP to extend OP_CSV (and/or OP_CLTV) in\n\u003e order for these to allow and interpret negative values. This way,\n\u003e taking the example shown in BIP 112:\n\u003e\n\u003e HASH160 \u003crevokehash\u003e EQUAL\n\u003e IF\n\u003e \u003cBob's pubkey\u003e\n\u003e ELSE\n\u003e \"24h\" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP\n\u003e \u003cAlice's pubkey\u003e\n\u003e ENDIF\n\u003e CHECKSIG\n\u003e\n\u003e that gives ownership only to Bob for the first 24 hours and then to\n\u003e whichever spends first, we basically propose using the negative bit value:\n\u003e\n\u003e HASH160 \u003crevokehash\u003e EQUAL\n\u003e IF\n\u003e \u003cBob's pubkey\u003e\n\u003e ELSE\n\u003e \"-24h\" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP\n\u003e \u003cAlice's pubkey\u003e\n\u003e ENDIF\n\u003e CHECKSIG\n\u003e\n\u003e meaning that both would have ownership for the first 24 hours, but\n\u003e after that only Bob would own such coins. Its implementation should\n\u003e not be too tedious, and in fact it simply implies considering negative\n\u003e values that are at the moment discarded as for the specification of\n\u003e BIP-112, leaving the sign bit unused.\n\u003e\n\u003e This, we argue, an increase the fairness of the users, and can at times\n\u003e be more cost-effective for users to do rather than trying a Replace-By-Fee\n\u003e transaction, should they want to modify such payment.\n\u003e\n\u003e We would like to have a discussion about this before proposing the\n\u003e BIP, for which we are preparing the text.\n\u003e\n\u003e You can find our paper discussing it here:\n\u003e https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-01867357 (find attached as well)\n\u003e\n\u003e Best,\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa, Önder Gürcan and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180906/287712d4/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "f1fb9a4aee11ff7569e8e6d15510ad76891787339a682e06fab769c352f8b8fd8ff0aac41c64464ad2cd83db6d46d53fc20517005ac0e7515613fd01115be62c" }