From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail•com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Should Graftroot be optional?
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:32:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAt2M19BMdD4SM1vOvt1pe+3dCspwFwECgk7ZEQFVHHA3Q_8Jw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRnd8WDPYturJZk5T-Q8KVbr4ZVOHq4s-UDOwL0KnBuRA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1309 bytes --]
Den tor 24 maj 2018 01:45Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph•org> skrev:
> I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your example.
>
> If graftroot were possible it would mean that the funds were paid to a
> public key. That holder(s) of the corresponding private key could
> sign without constraint, and so the accoutability you're expecting
> wouldn't exist there regardless of graftroot.
>
> I think maybe your example is only making the case that it should be
> possible to send funds constrained by a script without a public key
> ever existing at all. If so, I agree-- but that wasn't the question
> here as I understood it.
>
I have to admit I not an expert on this field, so some of my concerns might
not be relevant. However, I think Wuille understood my points and his reply
answered my concerns quite well. I'm only asking for the optional ability
to prove you're not using these constructions (because some uses requires
committing to an immutable script), and that already seems to exist. So for
the future implementations I only ask that this ability is preserved.
I think such a proof don't need to be public (making such a proof in
private is probably often better), although optionally it might be. A
private contract wouldn't publish these details, while a public commitment
would do so.
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1884 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-24 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-22 18:17 Pieter Wuille
2018-05-23 6:15 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-23 13:50 ` Andrew Poelstra
2018-05-23 17:52 ` Andrew Poelstra
2018-05-25 9:46 ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-23 22:06 ` Natanael
2018-05-23 23:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-05-24 9:32 ` Natanael [this message]
2018-05-24 1:58 ` Pieter Wuille
2018-05-24 2:08 ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-05-24 9:44 ` Natanael
2018-05-24 12:39 ` Andrew Poelstra
2018-05-25 10:14 ` Johnson Lau
2018-06-01 0:25 ` Pieter Wuille
2018-06-06 12:48 ` Tim Ruffing
2018-06-06 17:04 ` Pieter Wuille
2018-06-06 21:25 ` Tim Ruffing
2018-06-20 12:12 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-06-20 14:30 ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-06-21 7:09 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-06-27 7:29 ` 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=CAAt2M19BMdD4SM1vOvt1pe+3dCspwFwECgk7ZEQFVHHA3Q_8Jw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=natanael.l@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=greg@xiph$(echo .)org \
/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