On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Thanks everyone who commented so far, but let me clarify the context > of this question first a bit more to avoid getting into the weeds too > much.
My understanding of the question is this: Are there any useful applications which would be impeded if a signing party who could authorize an arbitrary transaction spending a coin had the option to instead sign a delegation to a new script? The reason this question is interesting to ask is because the obvious answer is "no": since the signer(s) could have signed an arbitrary transaction instead, being able to delegate is strictly less powerful. Moreover, absent graftroot they could always "delegate" non-atomically by spending the coin with the output being the delegated script that they would have graftrooted instead. Sometimes obvious answers have non-obvious counter examples, e.g. Andrews points related to blindsigning are worth keeping in mind. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
