I think a simple approach to what you want to accomplish is to simply have a multisig option with a locktime pre-signed transaction which is broadcastable at the 24h mark and has different spendability. This avoids introducing reorg-induced invalidity.
On September 6, 2018 9:19:24 AM UTC, Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >Hello everyone, > >We would like to propose a new BIP to extend OP_CSV (and/or OP_CLTV) in >order for these to allow and interpret negative values. This way, >taking the example shown in BIP 112: > >HASH160 <revokehash> EQUAL >IF > <Bob's pubkey> >ELSE > "24h" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP > <Alice's pubkey> >ENDIF >CHECKSIG > >that gives ownership only to Bob for the first 24 hours and then to >whichever spends first, we basically propose using the negative bit >value: > >HASH160 <revokehash> EQUAL >IF > <Bob's pubkey> >ELSE > "-24h" CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY DROP > <Alice's pubkey> >ENDIF >CHECKSIG > >meaning that both would have ownership for the first 24 hours, but >after that only Bob would own such coins. Its implementation should >not be too tedious, and in fact it simply implies considering negative >values that are at the moment discarded as for the specification of >BIP-112, leaving the sign bit unused. > >This, we argue, an increase the fairness of the users, and can at times >be more cost-effective for users to do rather than trying a >Replace-By-Fee >transaction, should they want to modify such payment. > >We would like to have a discussion about this before proposing the >BIP, for which we are preparing the text. > >You can find our paper discussing it here: >https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-01867357 (find attached as >well) > >Best, > >-- >Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa, Önder Gürcan and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
