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
