Greg Sanders [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-03-13 🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposed ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-03-13
🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposed improvement to the OP_VAULT draft is deemed too complicated and harmful to privacy, and a new approach is suggested involving a covenant-enforced relative locktime.
📝 Original message: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/20230313/922ebcb6/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposed improvement to the OP_VAULT draft is deemed too complicated and harmful to privacy, and a new approach is suggested involving a covenant-enforced relative locktime.
📝 Original message: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/20230313/922ebcb6/attachment.html>;