In ordinary use cases, you wouldn't clawback; that would only be in the
extreme case of the wallet being compromised. So typical usage would
just be receive -> send, like wallets currently do.
Luke
On 3/13/23 10:56, Greg Sanders wrote:
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
