inline responses -- @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:10 PM ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> wrote: > 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... ? > > Correct -- you can do this if you want multiple independent delegates to be able to revoke, or if you want S1 and S2 to mix height + time based relative locks -- bonus points if D1.txid == D2.txid, then you can be sure they're counting from the same origin point. > > 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? > Without anyprevout or similar, I believe so. > > > 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. > Yes, redelegating (or I guess rather recursive delegation?) would mean A, S, and S' are all in play. if you want to revoke just A, then S must move to a utxo with S and S'. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
