Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-03-13 🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposed BIP ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-03-13
🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposed BIP for a deposit -> withdrawal -> resolve(claim/clawback) wallet paradigm is deemed too complicated for everyday use and may harm privacy. A new approach is suggested.
📝 Original message:In ordinary use cases, you wouldn't clawback; that would only be in the
extreme case of the wallet being compromised. So typical usage would
just be receive -> send, like wallets currently do.
Luke
On 3/13/23 10:56, Greg Sanders wrote:
> Didn't finish sentence: but in practice would end up with pretty
> similar usage flows imho, and as noted in PR, would take a different
> wallet paradigm,
> among other technical challenges.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Luke,
>
> Can you elaborate why the current idealized functionality of
> deposit -> trigger -> withdrawal is too complicated for
> everyday use but the above deposit -> withdrawal ->
> resolve(claim/clawback) wouldn't be? I admit at a high level
> it's a fine paradigm, but in practice would end
>
> Let's ignore implementation for the discussion, since that's in flux.
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 3:53 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230313/1ee9a035/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposed BIP for a deposit -> withdrawal -> resolve(claim/clawback) wallet paradigm is deemed too complicated for everyday use and may harm privacy. A new approach is suggested.
📝 Original message:In ordinary use cases, you wouldn't clawback; that would only be in the
extreme case of the wallet being compromised. So typical usage would
just be receive -> send, like wallets currently do.
Luke
On 3/13/23 10:56, Greg Sanders wrote:
> Didn't finish sentence: but in practice would end up with pretty
> similar usage flows imho, and as noted in PR, would take a different
> wallet paradigm,
> among other technical challenges.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Luke,
>
> Can you elaborate why the current idealized functionality of
> deposit -> trigger -> withdrawal is too complicated for
> everyday use but the above deposit -> withdrawal ->
> resolve(claim/clawback) wouldn't be? I admit at a high level
> it's a fine paradigm, but in practice would end
>
> Let's ignore implementation for the discussion, since that's in flux.
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 3:53 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230313/1ee9a035/attachment.html>;