> To make it completely transparent to unupgraded wallets, the return outputs > have to be sent to something that is non-standard today, i.e. not P2PK, > P2PKH, P2SH, bare multi-sig, and (with BIP141) v0 P2WPKH and v0 P2WSH.
Johnson, I feel that's not as much of an issue with v0 witness programs. Segwit isn't activated yet, and segwit-capable wallets aren't as widely deployed for production. Not to mention, they're all going to require further development anyway: the address serialization for witness programs only became a BIP this week. No segwit wallets should ever be planning to receive money to naked witness programs right now, since addresses are for it aren't even available. I think we have the benefit of timing here. The state of segwit wallet development incidentally creates a window of time where this maturity rule can be implemented. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:56:28AM +0800, Johnson Lau wrote: > To make it completely transparent to unupgraded wallets, the return outputs > have to be sent to something that is non-standard today, i.e. not P2PK, > P2PKH, P2SH, bare multi-sig, and (with BIP141) v0 P2WPKH and v0 P2WSH. > > Mainchain segwit is particularly important here, as that allows atomic swap > between the bitcoin and xbitcoin. Only services with high liquidity > (exchanges, payment processors) would need to occasionally settle between the > chains. > > > > On 9 May 2017, at 08:56, Christopher Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Johnson, > > > > Yeah, I do still see the issue. I think there are still some reasonable > > ways to mitigate it. > > > > I've started revising the extension block specification/code to coexist > > with mainchain segwit. I think the benefit of this is that we can > > require exiting outputs to only be witness programs. Presumably segwit > > wallets will be more likely to be aware of a new output maturity rule > > (I've opened a PR[1] which describes this in greater detail). I think > > this probably reduces the likelihood of the legacy wallet issue, > > assuming most segwit-supporting wallets would implement this rule before > > the activation of segwit. > > > > What's your opinion on whether this would have a great enough effect to > > prevent the legacy wallet issue? I think switching to witness programs > > only may be a good balance between fungibility and backward-compat, > > probably better all around than creating a whole new > > addr-type/wit-program just for exits. > > > > [1] https://github.com/tothemoon-org/extension-blocks/pull/16 > > <https://github.com/tothemoon-org/extension-blocks/pull/16> > > > -- Christopher Jeffrey (JJ) <[email protected]> CTO & Bitcoin Menace, purse.io https://github.com/chjj
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
