I started reviewing the BIP, but stopped part way through, as it seems to have a number of conceptual issues.

I left several comments on the PR (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421#pullrequestreview-1335925575), but ultimately I think it isn't simplified enough for day-to-day use, and would harm privacy quite a bit.

Instead, I would suggest a new approach where:

1) Joe receives funds with a taproot output like normal.
2) Joe sends funds to Fred, but Fred cannot spend them until N blocks later (covenant-enforced relative locktime). Ideally, this should use/support a taproot keypath spend somehow. It would be nice to blind the particular relative locktime somehow too, but that may be too expensive. 2b) If Joe's funds were stolen, Joe can spend Fred's UTXO within the N block window to a recovery output.

Unfortunately, the implementation details for this kind of setup are non-obvious and will likely require yet another address format (or at least recipient-wallet changes), but certainly seems within the scope of possibility.



On 2/13/23 16:09, James O'Beirne via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Since the last related correspondence on this list [0], a number of
improvements have been made to the OP_VAULT draft [1]:

* There is no longer a hard dependence on package relay/ephemeral
  anchors for fee management. When using "authorized recovery," all
  vault-related transactions can be bundled with unrelated inputs and
  outputs, facilitating fee management that is self contained to the
  transaction. Consequently, the contents of this proposal are in theory
  usable today.

* Specific output locations are no longer hardcoded in any of the
  transaction validation algorithms. This means that the proposal is now
  compatible with future changes like SIGHASH_GROUP, and
  transaction shapes for vault operations are more flexible.


I've written a BIP that fully describes the proposal here:


The corresponding PR is here:


My next steps will be to try for a merge to the inquisition repo.

Thanks to everyone who has participated so far, but especially to AJ and
Greg for all the advice.


[0]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021318.html
[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26857

bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to