Natanael [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-05-24 📝 Original message:Den tor 24 maj 2018 ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-05-24
📝 Original message:Den tor 24 maj 2018 01:45Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org> skrev:
> I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your example.
>
> If graftroot were possible it would mean that the funds were paid to a
> public key. That holder(s) of the corresponding private key could
> sign without constraint, and so the accoutability you're expecting
> wouldn't exist there regardless of graftroot.
>
> I think maybe your example is only making the case that it should be
> possible to send funds constrained by a script without a public key
> ever existing at all. If so, I agree-- but that wasn't the question
> here as I understood it.
>
I have to admit I not an expert on this field, so some of my concerns might
not be relevant. However, I think Wuille understood my points and his reply
answered my concerns quite well. I'm only asking for the optional ability
to prove you're not using these constructions (because some uses requires
committing to an immutable script), and that already seems to exist. So for
the future implementations I only ask that this ability is preserved.
I think such a proof don't need to be public (making such a proof in
private is probably often better), although optionally it might be. A
private contract wouldn't publish these details, while a public commitment
would do so.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180524/6e1d11a6/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Den tor 24 maj 2018 01:45Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org> skrev:
> I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your example.
>
> If graftroot were possible it would mean that the funds were paid to a
> public key. That holder(s) of the corresponding private key could
> sign without constraint, and so the accoutability you're expecting
> wouldn't exist there regardless of graftroot.
>
> I think maybe your example is only making the case that it should be
> possible to send funds constrained by a script without a public key
> ever existing at all. If so, I agree-- but that wasn't the question
> here as I understood it.
>
I have to admit I not an expert on this field, so some of my concerns might
not be relevant. However, I think Wuille understood my points and his reply
answered my concerns quite well. I'm only asking for the optional ability
to prove you're not using these constructions (because some uses requires
committing to an immutable script), and that already seems to exist. So for
the future implementations I only ask that this ability is preserved.
I think such a proof don't need to be public (making such a proof in
private is probably often better), although optionally it might be. A
private contract wouldn't publish these details, while a public commitment
would do so.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180524/6e1d11a6/attachment.html>;