From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
To: James O'Beirne <james.obeirne@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Examining ScriptPubkeys in Bitcoin Script
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:54:27 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v8anr0kk.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPfvXfK7a5To=-n+TOY34KZn2T=Dkf5M1S3eFCNmug8xuE9rTw@mail.gmail.com>
"James O'Beirne" <james.obeirne@gmail•com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 12:51 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> But AFAICT there are multiple perfectly reasonable variants of vaults,
>> too. One would be:
>>
>> 1. master key can do anything
>> 2. OR normal key can send back to vault addr without delay
>> 3. OR normal key can do anything else after a delay.
>>
>> Another would be:
>> 1. normal key can send to P2WPKH(master)
>> 2. OR normal key can send to P2WPKH(normal key) after a delay.
>>
>
> I'm confused by what you mean here. I'm pretty sure that BIP-345 VAULT
> handles the cases that you're outlining, though I don't understand your
> terminology -- "master" vs. "normal", and why we are caring about P2WPKH
> vs. anything else. Using the OP_VAULT* codes can be done in an arbitrary
> arrangement of tapleaves, facilitating any number of vaultish spending
> conditions, alongside other non-VAULT leaves.
I was thinking from a user POV: the "master" key is the one they keep
super safe in case of emergencies, the "normal" is the delayed spend
key.
OP_VAULT certainly can encapsulate this, but I have yet to do the kind
of thorough review that I'd need to evaluate the various design
decisions.
> Well, I found the vault BIP really hard to understand. I think it wants
>> to be a new address format, not script opcodes.
>>
>
> Again confused here. This is like saying "CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY wants to be a
> new address format, not a script opcode."
I mean in an ideal world, Bitcoin Script would be powerful enough to
implement vaults, and once a popular use pattern emerged we'd introduce
a new address type, defined to expand to that template. Like P2WPK or
P2PKH.
Sadly, we're not in that world! BIP 345 introduces a number of separate
mechanisms, such as limited script delegation, iteration and amount
arithmetic which are not expressible in Script (ok, amount arithmetic
kind of is, but ick!).
To form a real opinion, I need to consider all these elements, and
whether they should exist inside OP_VAULT, or as separate things.
That's a slow process, sorry :(
> That said, I'm sure some VAULT patterns could be abstracted into the
> miniscript/descriptor layer to good effect.
That would be very interesting, but hard. Volunteers? :)
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-01 12:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-20 3:40 Rusty Russell
2023-10-20 14:19 ` Brandon Black
2023-10-22 4:16 ` Rusty Russell
2023-10-27 7:00 ` Anthony Towns
2023-10-28 4:49 ` Rusty Russell
2023-10-30 16:20 ` James O'Beirne
2023-10-31 2:24 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2023-10-31 13:05 ` Anthony Towns
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87v8anr0kk.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=james.obeirne@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox