Didn't finish sentence: but in practice would end up with pretty similar usage flows imho, and as noted in PR, would take a different wallet paradigm, among other technical challenges.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Greg Sanders <gsander...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Luke, > > Can you elaborate why the current idealized functionality of deposit -> > trigger -> withdrawal is too complicated for > everyday use but the above deposit -> withdrawal -> > resolve(claim/clawback) wouldn't be? I admit at a high level > it's a fine paradigm, but in practice would end > > Let's ignore implementation for the discussion, since that's in flux. > > Cheers, > Greg > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 3:53 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Luke >> >> >> 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: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/jamesob/bips/blob/jamesob-23-02-opvault/bip-vaults.mediawiki >> > >> > The corresponding PR is here: >> > >> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1421 >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > James >> > >> > [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@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
