Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-09-07 📝 Original message:Hi all, Thank you for the ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-09-07
📝 Original message:Hi all,
Thank you for the link, and also to Gregory for the remarks. I did not
know about this previous proposal. I think the last paragraph of future
work is interesting:
"It may be interesting to add enhance OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki>; to
allow outputs that are spendable by Alice until time foo, always
spendable by Bob, and spendable by Joe only after time bar, or other
such cases"
Perhaps it would allow this functionality, while keeping the validity of
coins, if the new OP_zzz took an additional argument than suggested,
such that the first one is the timelimit for Alice to keep the coin (say
in the first 24 hours), and after those 24 hours the ownership goes to
the third argument, say Bob.
That is, it is not possible to use only specifying the owner in the
first 24 hours. Would this be considered harmful?
Best,
Alejandro.
On 9/6/18 10:32 PM, Brandon Smith wrote:
> ade a similar proposal about 7 months ago, and documented some of the
> discussion points here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180907/f3f28537/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Hi all,
Thank you for the link, and also to Gregory for the remarks. I did not
know about this previous proposal. I think the last paragraph of future
work is interesting:
"It may be interesting to add enhance OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki>; to
allow outputs that are spendable by Alice until time foo, always
spendable by Bob, and spendable by Joe only after time bar, or other
such cases"
Perhaps it would allow this functionality, while keeping the validity of
coins, if the new OP_zzz took an additional argument than suggested,
such that the first one is the timelimit for Alice to keep the coin (say
in the first 24 hours), and after those 24 hours the ownership goes to
the third argument, say Bob.
That is, it is not possible to use only specifying the owner in the
first 24 hours. Would this be considered harmful?
Best,
Alejandro.
On 9/6/18 10:32 PM, Brandon Smith wrote:
> ade a similar proposal about 7 months ago, and documented some of the
> discussion points here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180907/f3f28537/attachment.html>;