> On 21 Dec 2018, at 7:17 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Johnson Lau writes:
>
>>> But I don't see how OP_CODESEPARATOR changes anything here, wrt NOINPUT?
>>> Remember, anyone can create an output which can be spent by any NOINPUT,
>>> whether we go for OP_MASK or simply not commiting to the i
> On 21 Dec 2018, at 7:15 PM, Christian Decker
> wrote:
>
> Johnson Lau writes:
>
>> I think the use of OP_CSV (BIP112) is not needed here (although it
>> doesn’t really harm except taking a few more bytes). All you need is
>> to sign the settlement tx with a BIP68 relative locktime. Since t
> On 21 Dec 2018, at 7:40 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> Good morning Johnson,
>
>> The proposed solution is that an output must be “tagged” for it to be
>> spendable with NOINPUT, and the “tag” must be made explicitly by the payer.
>> There are 2 possible ways to do the tagging:
>
> First off, th
Good morning Johnson,
> The proposed solution is that an output must be “tagged” for it to be
> spendable with NOINPUT, and the “tag” must be made explicitly by the payer.
> There are 2 possible ways to do the tagging:
First off, this is a very good idea I think.
> While this seems fully
Johnson Lau writes:
>> If we are using a trigger transaction the output of the setup
>> transaction would simply be `2 Au Bu 2 OP_CMS`. If we were to use a CLTV
>> in there we would not have an option to later attach a collaborative
>> close transaction that is valid immediately. Furthermore the t
