On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:23:05PM -0500, Myrtle Warren wrote: > > I think I'm missing something here; do we need a special construct to do > this? Doesn't the input/output system provide this functionality? If the > "trigger" is an output (denoted by its commitment) supplied by a > counterparty, and transaction A spends this output (in addition to any others > it needs to serve its purpose), transaction A can only be broadcast > successfully once a transaction that pays this output has been propagated. > Due to the need for cooperative transaction creation in mimblewimble it is > impossible for the holder of transaction A (or any other party) to create the > relevant output without the consent of the counterparty. Combine this with a > relative locktime and it seems like you have the pieces you need for the rest > of the exchange.
The problem is thta you can't "combine this with a relative locktime" because data can only be attached to kernels, which don't have inputs or outputs associated to them in a consensus-verifiable way. -- Andrew Poelstra Mathematics Department, Blockstream Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew "A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese who can never find their peace, whether north or south or west or east" --Joanna Newsom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
