Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-10-03 📝 Original message:On Friday, October 03, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-10-03
📝 Original message:On Friday, October 03, 2014 2:28:17 PM Matt Whitlock wrote:
> Is there a reason why we can't have the new opcode simply replace the top
> stack item with the block height of the txout being redeemed? Then
> arbitrary logic could be implemented, including "output cannot be spent
> until a certain time" and also "output can ONLY be spent until a certain
> time," as well as complex logic with alternative key groups with differing
> time constraints.
This cannot be done in a softfork.
Furthermore, "output can ONLY be spent until a certain time" contradict's
Bitcoin's present security assumptions: that assuming a honest sender, the
transaction will remain valid and simply re-confirm if a reorg kicks it out.
Luke
📝 Original message:On Friday, October 03, 2014 2:28:17 PM Matt Whitlock wrote:
> Is there a reason why we can't have the new opcode simply replace the top
> stack item with the block height of the txout being redeemed? Then
> arbitrary logic could be implemented, including "output cannot be spent
> until a certain time" and also "output can ONLY be spent until a certain
> time," as well as complex logic with alternative key groups with differing
> time constraints.
This cannot be done in a softfork.
Furthermore, "output can ONLY be spent until a certain time" contradict's
Bitcoin's present security assumptions: that assuming a honest sender, the
transaction will remain valid and simply re-confirm if a reorg kicks it out.
Luke