Re: [bitcoin-dev] Refreshed BIP324

2023-01-09 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 09:12:50AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 10:06:29PM +, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Oh, yes. I meant this as an encoding scheme, not as a (replacement for) the > > negotiation/coordination mechanism. There could still

[bitcoin-dev] OP_VAULT: a new vault proposal

2023-01-09 Thread James O'Beirne via bitcoin-dev
For the last few years, I've been interested in vaults as a way to substantially derisk custodying Bitcoin, both at personal and commercial scales. Instead of abating with familiarity, as enthusiasm sometimes does, my conviction that vaults are an almost necessary part of bitcoin's viability has on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_VAULT: a new vault proposal

2023-01-09 Thread rot13maxi via bitcoin-dev
Hey James, Really cool proposal. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about script paths for inheritance. In a lot of the “have a relative time lock that allows a different key to spend coins, or allows a smaller threshold of a multisig to spend” schemes, you have the problem of needing to “refresh”

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_VAULT: a new vault proposal

2023-01-09 Thread Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev
Hi James and co, Currently there is no way to make this compatible with scripthashes of any kind, since the script interpreter has no insight into the OP_UNVAULT outputs' "execution script", and one of the arguments of OP_UNVAULT is freeform, resulting in an unpredictable output scriptpubkey. I t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_VAULT: a new vault proposal

2023-01-09 Thread James O'Beirne via bitcoin-dev
Hey Greg, I think what you're trying to get at here is that the OP_UNVAULT scriptPubKey *must* be a bare script so that the OP_VAULT spend logic can verify that we're spending an OP_VAULT output into a compatible OP_UNVAULT output, and that's true. The OP_UNVAULT scriptPubKey also must contain the

[bitcoin-dev] Why Full-RBF Makes DoS Attacks on Multiparty Protocols Significantly More Expensive

2023-01-09 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
I was reminded recently that while Suhas Daftuar cited tx-pinning as a reason to remove full-rbf, he neglected to mention that tx-pinning greatly increases the cost of attacks on multi-party protocols. Him (rhetorically?) asking(4): "Does fullrbf offer any benefits other than breaking zeroconf

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Full-RBF Makes DoS Attacks on Multiparty Protocols Significantly More Expensive

2023-01-09 Thread David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
On 2023-01-09 12:18, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: [The quote:] "Does fullrbf offer any benefits other than breaking zeroconf business practices?" ...has caused a lot of confusion by implying that there were no benefits. [...] tl;dr: without full-rbf people can intentionally a