Jeremy [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-11-29 📝 Original message: Just a minor curiosity I ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-11-29
📝 Original message:
Just a minor curiosity I figured was worth mentioning on the composition of
delegations and anyprevout...

DA: Let full delegation be a script S such that I can sign script R and
then R may sign for a transaction T.
DB: Let partial delegation be a script S such that I can sign a tuple
(script R, transaction T) and R may sign T.

A simple version of this could be done for scriptless multisigs where S
signs T and then onion encrypts to the signers of R and distributes the
shares. However, under such a model, if T is signed by S with AnyPrevOut,
then T is now arbitrarily rebindable. Therefore let us define more strictly:
DC: Let half-delegation be a script S such that I can sign a tuple (script
R, transaction T) and R may sign T and revealing T/R does grant
authorization to any other party.

The signer of R could choose to sign with APO, in which case they make the
txn rebindable. They could also reveal the private keys for R similarly.
For "correct" use, R should sign with SIGHASH_ALL, binding the transaction
to a single instance.

Observation: a tuple script R + transaction T can, in many cases, be
represented by script R || <H(transaction T)> CTV.
Corollary: half-delegation can be derived from full delegation and a
covenant.

Therefore delegation + CTV + APO may be sufficient for making chaperone
signatures work, if they are desired by a user.

Remarks:

APO's design discussion should not revisit Chaperone signatures (hopefully
already a dead horse?) but instead consider how APO might compose with
Delegation proposals and CTV.

--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211129/a63d9d54/attachment.html>;