Good morning Jeremy, This is a very cool idea!
> Multiple Delegates: By signing a txn with several delegate outputs, it is > possible to enforce multiple disparate conditions. Normally this is > superfluous -- why not just concatenate S1 and S2? The answer is that you may > have S1 require a relative height lock and S2 require a relative time lock > (this was one of the mechanisms investigated for powswap.com). I am somewhat confused by this. Do you mean that the delegating transaction (the one signed using the script of A with `SIGHASH_NONE`) has as input (consumes) multiple delegate outputs D1, D2... with individual scripts S1, S2... ? > Sequenced Contingent Delegation: By constructing a specific TXID that may > delegate the coins, you can make a coin's delegation contingent on some other > contract reaching a specific state. For example, suppose I had a contract > that had 100 different possible end states, all with fixed outpoints at the > end. I could delegate coins in different arrangements to be claimable only if > the contract reaches that state. Note that such a model requires some level > of coordination between the main and observing contract as each Coin delegate > can only be claimed one time. Does this require that each contract end-state have a known TXID at setup time? > Redelegating: This is where A delegates to S, S delegates to S'. This type of > mechanism most likely requires the coin to be moved on-chain to the script (A > OR S or S'), but the on-chain movement may be delayed (via presigned > transactions) until S' actually wants to do something with the coin. The script `A || S || S'` suggests that delegation effectively still allows the original owner to still control the coin, right? Which I suppose is implied by "Revocation" above. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
