Federico Tenga [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-07-27 📝 Original message:Hi ZmnSCPxj, Few thoughts ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-07-27
📝 Original message:Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Few thoughts about your proposal:
1- I kinda like the idea and I would probably use it, but still I believe
it is a very limited use case and probably most wallet providers will not
be interested in supporting it.
2- Early adopters and people highly involved in the community may
appreciate the "hodl" part in the redemption code, but it could cause
confusion in normal users not understanding the reference.
Regarding the time-zone I think the best option is to stick the UTC
standard, using UTC+14 could be confusing since it is very unusual and we
are not used to deal with it.
On 12 July 2017 at 10:30, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Good morning mailinglist,
>
> I am saddened at the lack of attention to this BIP proposal. I know that
> it is not as interesting as the debates on where Bitcoin will go in the
> future and what needs to be prepared for even greater mainstream adoption,
> but I think my BIP proposal does have at least some value to long-term
> investors.
>
> So far I have seen only a single public feedback:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lzpvz/bip_hodl/djxzbvi/
>
> Basically, the point in that feedback is mostly that the computed timelock
> should be UTC+0 0000h of the given human-readable date.
>
> I would like to respectfully ask the mailing list about which option is
> best:
>
> 1. (current) Use the earliest timezone as of now, UTC+14 0000h of the
> given human-readable date. Pro: No matter where you are in the world, as
> soon as the given date arrives, the fund can be spent. Con: For most of
> the world, the fund can be spent on some time the day before, or even two
> days before for UTC-11 and UTC-12 timezones.
>
> 2. Use the standard timezone UTC+0 0000h of the given human-readable
> date. Pro: standard time. Con: for half of the world, the fund is not
> spendable until some time into the given date, for the other half, it will
> be spendable at an earlier date.
>
> 3. Allow indicating a timezone to the human-readable part. Pro: gives
> control over the user's expected local time. Con: additional field and
> effectively more control, need to handle also strange timezones that have
> 0.5 hour difference from UTC, need to encode positive and negative
> preferably without using + and -, as those may break double-click selection.
>
> I hope to get some feedback from this list.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Standard address format for
> timelocked funds
> Local Time: July 8, 2017 9:13 AM
> UTC Time: July 8, 2017 1:13 AM
> From: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> To: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>
>
> <pre>
> BIP: ?
> Title: Standard address format for timelocked funds
> Author: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com>
> Comments-Summary: ?
> Comments-URI: ?
> Status: ?
> Type: ?
> Created: 2017-07-01
> License: CC0-1.0
> </pre>
>
> == Abstract ==
>
> <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code> provides a method of
> locking funds until a particular time arrives.
> One potential use of this opcode is for a user to precommit
> himself or herself to not spend funds until a particular
> date, i.e. to hold the funds until a later date.
>
> This proposal adds a format for specifying addresses that
> precommit to timelocked funds, as well as specifying a
> redemption code to redeem funds after the timelock has
> passed.
> This allows ordinary non-technical users to make use of
> <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code> easily.
>
> == Copyright ==
>
> This BIP is released under CC0-1.0.
>
> == Specification ==
>
> This proposal provides formats for specifying an
> address that locks funds until a specified date,
> and a redemption code that allows the funds to be
> swept on or after the specified date.
>
> At minimum, wallet software supporting this BIP must
> be capable of sweeping the redemption code on or after
> the specified date.
> In addition, the wallet software should support sending
> funds to the timelocked address specified here.
> Finally, wallet software may provide a command to create
> a pair of timelocked address and redemption code.
>
> Addresses and redemption codes are encoded using
> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#Bech32
> Bech32 encoding].
>
> === Timelocked Address Format ===
>
> The human-readable part of the address is composed of:
>
> # The four characters <code>hodl</code>.
> # A date, in <code>YYYYMMDD</code> form. For example,
> the date August 1, 2017 is encoded as <code>20170801</code>.
> # A network code, either <code>tb</code> for testnet,
> or <code>bc</code> for Bitcoin mainnet.
>
> The data part of the address is composed of:
>
> # A version quintet (5 bits), which must be 0 for this
> BIP.
> # A public key hash, 32 quintets (160 bits). As is
> usual for Bitcoin, this is big-endian.
>
> This is to be interpreted as follows:
>
> # The given date is the first day that the funds in
> the given address may be redeemed.
> # The funds are owned by whoever controls the private
> key corresponding to the public key hash given.
>
> === Redemption Code ===
>
> The human-readable part of the redemption code is
> composed of:
>
> # The four characters <code>hedl</code>.
> # A date, in <code>YYYYMMDD</code> form.
> # A network code, either <code>tb</code> for testnet,
> or <code>bc</code> for Bitcoin mainnet.
>
> The data part of the address is composed of:
>
> # A version quintet (5 bits), which must be 0 for this
> BIP.
> # A private key, 52 quintets (260 bits). This is the
> 256-bit private key, prepended with 4 <code>0</code>
> bits, in big-endian order. <!-- We could consider
> some kind of mini private key instead if the security
> is similar anyway. -->
>
> This is to be interpreted as follows:
>
> # The given date is the first day that the funds in
> the given address may be redeemed.
> # The private key unlocks the funds.
>
> === Lock Time Computation ===
>
> Given a particular lock date <code>YYYYMMDD</code>, the
> actual lock time is computed as follows:
>
> # The day before the lock date is taken. For example,
> if the lock date is <code>20180101</code> or
> January 1, 2018, we take the date December 31, 2017.
> # We take the time 1000h (10:00 AM, or 10 in the morning)
> of the date from the above step.
>
> This lock time is then translated to a
> Unix epoch time, as per POSIX.1-2001 (which removes the
> buggy day February 29, 2100 in previous POSIX revisions).
> The translation should use, at minimum, unsigned 32-bit
> numbers to represent the Unix epoch time.
>
> The Unix epoch time shall then be interpreted as an
> <code>nLockTime</code> value, as per standard Bitcoin.
> Whether it is possible to represent dates past 2038
> will depend on whether standard Bitcoin can represent
> <code>nLockTime</code> values to represent dates past
> 2038.
> Since <code>nLockTime</code> is an unsigned 32-bit
> value, it should be possible to represent dates until
> 06:28:15 UTC+0 2106-02-07.
> Future versions of Bitcoin should be able to support
> <code>nLockTime</code> larger than unsigned 32-bit,
> in order to allow even later dates.
>
> The reason for using an earlier lock time than the
> specified date is given in the Rationale section of
> this BIP.
>
> === Payment to a Timelocked Address ===
>
> An ordinary P2SH payment is used to provide funds to a
> timelocked address.
>
> The script below is used as the <code>redeemScript</code>
> for the P2SH payment:
>
> <timeout> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <publickeyhash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
>
> Once the <code>redeemScript</code> is derived, the hash is
> determined, and an ordinary P2SH output with the below
> <code>scriptPubKey</code> used:
>
> OP_HASH160 <redeemScripthash> OP_EQUAL
>
> In case of SegWit deployment, SegWit-compatible wallets
> should be able to use P2SH, P2WSH, or P2SH-P2WSH, as per
> the output they would normally use in that situation.
>
> Obviously, a timelocked address has an equivalent
> Bitcoin <code>3</code> (P2SH) address.
> A simple service or software that translates from a
> public timelocked address to a P2SH address can be
> created that makes timelocking (but not redemption)
> backwards compatible with wallets that do not support
> this BIP.
>
> This proposal recommends that wallets supporting payment
> to P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, and P2WSH Bitcoin addresses should
> reuse the same interface for paying to such addresses as
> paying into timelocked addresses of this proposal.
>
> === Redemption of a Timelocked Redemption Code ===
>
> To sweep a timelocked redemption code after the timelock,
> one must provide the given <code>redeemScript</code> as
> part of the <code>scriptSig</code>, of all unspent
> outputs that pay to the given <code>redeemScript</code>
> hash.
>
> When sweeping a timelocked redemption code, first the
> wallet must extract the private key from the redemption
> code, then derive the public key, the public key hash,
> the <code>redeemScript</code>, and finally the
> <code>redeemScript</code> hash.
>
> Then, the wallet must find all unspent outputs that pay
> to the <code>redeemScript</code> hash via P2SH (and, in the
> case of SegWit deployment, via P2SH-P2WSH and P2WSH).
>
> For each such output, the wallet then generates a
> transaction input with the below <code>scriptSig</code>, as
> per usual P2SH redemptions:
>
> <signature> <pubkey> <redeemScript>
>
> The wallet then outputs to an address it can control.
>
> As the Script involved uses <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code>,
> the <code>nSequence</code> must be 0 and the
> <code>nLockTime</code> must be equal to the computed
> lock time.
> This implies that the transaction cannot be transmitted
> (and the funds cannot be sweeped)
> until after the given lock time.
>
> The above procedure is roughly identical to sweeping an
> ordinary, exported private key.
>
> This proposal recommends that wallets supporting a sweep
> function should reuse the same interface for sweeping
> individual private keys (wallet import format) for sweeping
> timelocked redemption codes.
>
> == Motivation ==
>
> A key motivation for this BIP is to allow easy use of
> <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code> by end-users.
>
> The below are expected use cases of this proposal:
>
> # A user wants to purchase an amount of Bitcoin,
> and subsequently wait for an amount of time before
> cashing out.
> The user fears that he or she may have "weak hands",
> i.e. sell unfavorably on a temporary dip, and thus
> commits the coins into a timelocked fund that can
> only be opened after a specific date.
> # A user wants to gift an amount of Bitcoins to
> an infant or minor, and wants the fund to not be spent
> on ill-advised purchases until the infant or minor
> reaches the age of maturity.
> # A user may wish to prepare some kind of monthly subsidy
> or allowance to another user, and prepares a series of
> timelocked addresses, redeemable at some set date on
> each month, and provides the private redemption codes to
> the beneficiary.
> # A user may fear duress or ransom for a particular
> future time horizon, and voluntarily impose a lock time
> during which a majority of their funds cannot be spent.
>
> == Rationale ==
>
> While in principle, this proposal may be implemented as a
> separate service or software, we should consider the long
> time horizons that may be desired by users.
> A user using a particular software to timelock a fund may
> have concerns, for example, of specifying a timelock
> 18 years in the future for a gift or inheritance to a
> newborn infant.
> The software or service may no longer exist after 18 years,
> unless the user himself or herself takes over maintenance
> of that software or service.
> By having a single standard for timelocked funds that is
> shared and common among multiple implementations of Bitcoin
> wallets, the user has some assurance that the redemption code
> for the funds is still useable after 18 years.
> Further, a publicly-accessible standard specifying how the
> funds can be redeemed will allow technically-capable users
> or beneficiaries to create software that can redeem the
> timelocked fund.
>
> This proposal provides a timelock at the granularity of a
> day.
> The expectation is that users will have long time
> durations of months or years, so that the ability to
> specify exact times, which would require specifying the
> timezone, is unneeded.
>
> The actual timeout used is 1000h of the day before the
> human-readable date, so that timezones of UTC+14 will
> definitely be able to redeem the money starting at
> 0000h of the human-readable date, local time (UTC+14).
> Given the expectation that users will use long time
> durations, the fact that timezones of UTC-12 will
> actually be able to redeem the funds on 2200h UTC-12
> time two days before can be considered an acceptable
> error.
>
> The human-readable date is formatted according to
> [https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html
> ISO standard dates], with the dashes removed.
> Dashes may prevent double-click selection, making
> usability of these addresses less desirable.
> <!--
> We can consider something like 2021m12d11 instead,
> which would be much more readable and understandable
> to human users.
> -->
>
> The <code>bc</code> or <code>tb</code> is after the
> date since the date is composed of digits and the bech32
> separator itself is the digit <code>1</code>. One
> simply needs to compare <code>hedlbc202111211...</code>
> and <code>hedl20211121bc1...</code>.
>
> A version quintet is added in case of a future
> sociopolitical event that changes interpretation of
> dates, or changes in scripting that would allow for more
> efficient redemptions of timelocked funds (which would
> change the <code>redeemScript</code> paid to), or changes
> in the size and/or format of lock times, and so on.
> Such changes are unlikely, so the version is a quintet in
> the bech32 data part rather than a substring in the
> human-readable part.
>
> The public address format uses the <code>hodl</code> as
> the start of the code, while the private key (the
> redemption code) uses <code>hedl</code>.
> This provides a simple mnemonic for users:
> "Pay into the <code>hodl</code> code to hold your
> coins until the given date.
> After you've held the coins (on or after the given date)
> use the <code>hedl</code> code to redeem the coins."
> The obvious misspelling of "hodl" is a homage to the common
> meme within the Bitcoin community.
> <!-- The above misspelling may be corrected if it is considered
> to be in bad taste. -->
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170727/45b458bf/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Few thoughts about your proposal:
1- I kinda like the idea and I would probably use it, but still I believe
it is a very limited use case and probably most wallet providers will not
be interested in supporting it.
2- Early adopters and people highly involved in the community may
appreciate the "hodl" part in the redemption code, but it could cause
confusion in normal users not understanding the reference.
Regarding the time-zone I think the best option is to stick the UTC
standard, using UTC+14 could be confusing since it is very unusual and we
are not used to deal with it.
On 12 July 2017 at 10:30, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Good morning mailinglist,
>
> I am saddened at the lack of attention to this BIP proposal. I know that
> it is not as interesting as the debates on where Bitcoin will go in the
> future and what needs to be prepared for even greater mainstream adoption,
> but I think my BIP proposal does have at least some value to long-term
> investors.
>
> So far I have seen only a single public feedback:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lzpvz/bip_hodl/djxzbvi/
>
> Basically, the point in that feedback is mostly that the computed timelock
> should be UTC+0 0000h of the given human-readable date.
>
> I would like to respectfully ask the mailing list about which option is
> best:
>
> 1. (current) Use the earliest timezone as of now, UTC+14 0000h of the
> given human-readable date. Pro: No matter where you are in the world, as
> soon as the given date arrives, the fund can be spent. Con: For most of
> the world, the fund can be spent on some time the day before, or even two
> days before for UTC-11 and UTC-12 timezones.
>
> 2. Use the standard timezone UTC+0 0000h of the given human-readable
> date. Pro: standard time. Con: for half of the world, the fund is not
> spendable until some time into the given date, for the other half, it will
> be spendable at an earlier date.
>
> 3. Allow indicating a timezone to the human-readable part. Pro: gives
> control over the user's expected local time. Con: additional field and
> effectively more control, need to handle also strange timezones that have
> 0.5 hour difference from UTC, need to encode positive and negative
> preferably without using + and -, as those may break double-click selection.
>
> I hope to get some feedback from this list.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Standard address format for
> timelocked funds
> Local Time: July 8, 2017 9:13 AM
> UTC Time: July 8, 2017 1:13 AM
> From: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> To: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>
>
> <pre>
> BIP: ?
> Title: Standard address format for timelocked funds
> Author: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com>
> Comments-Summary: ?
> Comments-URI: ?
> Status: ?
> Type: ?
> Created: 2017-07-01
> License: CC0-1.0
> </pre>
>
> == Abstract ==
>
> <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code> provides a method of
> locking funds until a particular time arrives.
> One potential use of this opcode is for a user to precommit
> himself or herself to not spend funds until a particular
> date, i.e. to hold the funds until a later date.
>
> This proposal adds a format for specifying addresses that
> precommit to timelocked funds, as well as specifying a
> redemption code to redeem funds after the timelock has
> passed.
> This allows ordinary non-technical users to make use of
> <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code> easily.
>
> == Copyright ==
>
> This BIP is released under CC0-1.0.
>
> == Specification ==
>
> This proposal provides formats for specifying an
> address that locks funds until a specified date,
> and a redemption code that allows the funds to be
> swept on or after the specified date.
>
> At minimum, wallet software supporting this BIP must
> be capable of sweeping the redemption code on or after
> the specified date.
> In addition, the wallet software should support sending
> funds to the timelocked address specified here.
> Finally, wallet software may provide a command to create
> a pair of timelocked address and redemption code.
>
> Addresses and redemption codes are encoded using
> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#Bech32
> Bech32 encoding].
>
> === Timelocked Address Format ===
>
> The human-readable part of the address is composed of:
>
> # The four characters <code>hodl</code>.
> # A date, in <code>YYYYMMDD</code> form. For example,
> the date August 1, 2017 is encoded as <code>20170801</code>.
> # A network code, either <code>tb</code> for testnet,
> or <code>bc</code> for Bitcoin mainnet.
>
> The data part of the address is composed of:
>
> # A version quintet (5 bits), which must be 0 for this
> BIP.
> # A public key hash, 32 quintets (160 bits). As is
> usual for Bitcoin, this is big-endian.
>
> This is to be interpreted as follows:
>
> # The given date is the first day that the funds in
> the given address may be redeemed.
> # The funds are owned by whoever controls the private
> key corresponding to the public key hash given.
>
> === Redemption Code ===
>
> The human-readable part of the redemption code is
> composed of:
>
> # The four characters <code>hedl</code>.
> # A date, in <code>YYYYMMDD</code> form.
> # A network code, either <code>tb</code> for testnet,
> or <code>bc</code> for Bitcoin mainnet.
>
> The data part of the address is composed of:
>
> # A version quintet (5 bits), which must be 0 for this
> BIP.
> # A private key, 52 quintets (260 bits). This is the
> 256-bit private key, prepended with 4 <code>0</code>
> bits, in big-endian order. <!-- We could consider
> some kind of mini private key instead if the security
> is similar anyway. -->
>
> This is to be interpreted as follows:
>
> # The given date is the first day that the funds in
> the given address may be redeemed.
> # The private key unlocks the funds.
>
> === Lock Time Computation ===
>
> Given a particular lock date <code>YYYYMMDD</code>, the
> actual lock time is computed as follows:
>
> # The day before the lock date is taken. For example,
> if the lock date is <code>20180101</code> or
> January 1, 2018, we take the date December 31, 2017.
> # We take the time 1000h (10:00 AM, or 10 in the morning)
> of the date from the above step.
>
> This lock time is then translated to a
> Unix epoch time, as per POSIX.1-2001 (which removes the
> buggy day February 29, 2100 in previous POSIX revisions).
> The translation should use, at minimum, unsigned 32-bit
> numbers to represent the Unix epoch time.
>
> The Unix epoch time shall then be interpreted as an
> <code>nLockTime</code> value, as per standard Bitcoin.
> Whether it is possible to represent dates past 2038
> will depend on whether standard Bitcoin can represent
> <code>nLockTime</code> values to represent dates past
> 2038.
> Since <code>nLockTime</code> is an unsigned 32-bit
> value, it should be possible to represent dates until
> 06:28:15 UTC+0 2106-02-07.
> Future versions of Bitcoin should be able to support
> <code>nLockTime</code> larger than unsigned 32-bit,
> in order to allow even later dates.
>
> The reason for using an earlier lock time than the
> specified date is given in the Rationale section of
> this BIP.
>
> === Payment to a Timelocked Address ===
>
> An ordinary P2SH payment is used to provide funds to a
> timelocked address.
>
> The script below is used as the <code>redeemScript</code>
> for the P2SH payment:
>
> <timeout> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <publickeyhash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
>
> Once the <code>redeemScript</code> is derived, the hash is
> determined, and an ordinary P2SH output with the below
> <code>scriptPubKey</code> used:
>
> OP_HASH160 <redeemScripthash> OP_EQUAL
>
> In case of SegWit deployment, SegWit-compatible wallets
> should be able to use P2SH, P2WSH, or P2SH-P2WSH, as per
> the output they would normally use in that situation.
>
> Obviously, a timelocked address has an equivalent
> Bitcoin <code>3</code> (P2SH) address.
> A simple service or software that translates from a
> public timelocked address to a P2SH address can be
> created that makes timelocking (but not redemption)
> backwards compatible with wallets that do not support
> this BIP.
>
> This proposal recommends that wallets supporting payment
> to P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, and P2WSH Bitcoin addresses should
> reuse the same interface for paying to such addresses as
> paying into timelocked addresses of this proposal.
>
> === Redemption of a Timelocked Redemption Code ===
>
> To sweep a timelocked redemption code after the timelock,
> one must provide the given <code>redeemScript</code> as
> part of the <code>scriptSig</code>, of all unspent
> outputs that pay to the given <code>redeemScript</code>
> hash.
>
> When sweeping a timelocked redemption code, first the
> wallet must extract the private key from the redemption
> code, then derive the public key, the public key hash,
> the <code>redeemScript</code>, and finally the
> <code>redeemScript</code> hash.
>
> Then, the wallet must find all unspent outputs that pay
> to the <code>redeemScript</code> hash via P2SH (and, in the
> case of SegWit deployment, via P2SH-P2WSH and P2WSH).
>
> For each such output, the wallet then generates a
> transaction input with the below <code>scriptSig</code>, as
> per usual P2SH redemptions:
>
> <signature> <pubkey> <redeemScript>
>
> The wallet then outputs to an address it can control.
>
> As the Script involved uses <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code>,
> the <code>nSequence</code> must be 0 and the
> <code>nLockTime</code> must be equal to the computed
> lock time.
> This implies that the transaction cannot be transmitted
> (and the funds cannot be sweeped)
> until after the given lock time.
>
> The above procedure is roughly identical to sweeping an
> ordinary, exported private key.
>
> This proposal recommends that wallets supporting a sweep
> function should reuse the same interface for sweeping
> individual private keys (wallet import format) for sweeping
> timelocked redemption codes.
>
> == Motivation ==
>
> A key motivation for this BIP is to allow easy use of
> <code>OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY</code> by end-users.
>
> The below are expected use cases of this proposal:
>
> # A user wants to purchase an amount of Bitcoin,
> and subsequently wait for an amount of time before
> cashing out.
> The user fears that he or she may have "weak hands",
> i.e. sell unfavorably on a temporary dip, and thus
> commits the coins into a timelocked fund that can
> only be opened after a specific date.
> # A user wants to gift an amount of Bitcoins to
> an infant or minor, and wants the fund to not be spent
> on ill-advised purchases until the infant or minor
> reaches the age of maturity.
> # A user may wish to prepare some kind of monthly subsidy
> or allowance to another user, and prepares a series of
> timelocked addresses, redeemable at some set date on
> each month, and provides the private redemption codes to
> the beneficiary.
> # A user may fear duress or ransom for a particular
> future time horizon, and voluntarily impose a lock time
> during which a majority of their funds cannot be spent.
>
> == Rationale ==
>
> While in principle, this proposal may be implemented as a
> separate service or software, we should consider the long
> time horizons that may be desired by users.
> A user using a particular software to timelock a fund may
> have concerns, for example, of specifying a timelock
> 18 years in the future for a gift or inheritance to a
> newborn infant.
> The software or service may no longer exist after 18 years,
> unless the user himself or herself takes over maintenance
> of that software or service.
> By having a single standard for timelocked funds that is
> shared and common among multiple implementations of Bitcoin
> wallets, the user has some assurance that the redemption code
> for the funds is still useable after 18 years.
> Further, a publicly-accessible standard specifying how the
> funds can be redeemed will allow technically-capable users
> or beneficiaries to create software that can redeem the
> timelocked fund.
>
> This proposal provides a timelock at the granularity of a
> day.
> The expectation is that users will have long time
> durations of months or years, so that the ability to
> specify exact times, which would require specifying the
> timezone, is unneeded.
>
> The actual timeout used is 1000h of the day before the
> human-readable date, so that timezones of UTC+14 will
> definitely be able to redeem the money starting at
> 0000h of the human-readable date, local time (UTC+14).
> Given the expectation that users will use long time
> durations, the fact that timezones of UTC-12 will
> actually be able to redeem the funds on 2200h UTC-12
> time two days before can be considered an acceptable
> error.
>
> The human-readable date is formatted according to
> [https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html
> ISO standard dates], with the dashes removed.
> Dashes may prevent double-click selection, making
> usability of these addresses less desirable.
> <!--
> We can consider something like 2021m12d11 instead,
> which would be much more readable and understandable
> to human users.
> -->
>
> The <code>bc</code> or <code>tb</code> is after the
> date since the date is composed of digits and the bech32
> separator itself is the digit <code>1</code>. One
> simply needs to compare <code>hedlbc202111211...</code>
> and <code>hedl20211121bc1...</code>.
>
> A version quintet is added in case of a future
> sociopolitical event that changes interpretation of
> dates, or changes in scripting that would allow for more
> efficient redemptions of timelocked funds (which would
> change the <code>redeemScript</code> paid to), or changes
> in the size and/or format of lock times, and so on.
> Such changes are unlikely, so the version is a quintet in
> the bech32 data part rather than a substring in the
> human-readable part.
>
> The public address format uses the <code>hodl</code> as
> the start of the code, while the private key (the
> redemption code) uses <code>hedl</code>.
> This provides a simple mnemonic for users:
> "Pay into the <code>hodl</code> code to hold your
> coins until the given date.
> After you've held the coins (on or after the given date)
> use the <code>hedl</code> code to redeem the coins."
> The obvious misspelling of "hodl" is a homage to the common
> meme within the Bitcoin community.
> <!-- The above misspelling may be corrected if it is considered
> to be in bad taste. -->
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170727/45b458bf/attachment-0001.html>;