📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13
📝 Original message:On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:48 PM, xor via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> This clearly says that funds can be frozen.
>> Can the BIP65-thing be used to freeze funds or can it not be?
> This language definitely trips up or worries several folks - it's been
> mentioned a few times before.
>
> The user _chooses_ to freeze _their own_ funds. It is not an unwilling act
> of force, which many assume when they see the phrase "freeze funds."
The most frequent related point of confusion I see is that people have
a dangerously wrong mental model of how scrpitpubkeys work.
It seems people think that wallets will infer whatever they can
possibly spend and display that. This is not how wallets work, and if
any wallet were ever created like that its users would immediately go
broke (and it's author should be taken out and shot. :) ).
Rather, wallets must only display funds paid to scriptpubkeys (also
addresses) they actually generated or, at least, would have generated.
Otherwise someone can just create a 1 of 2 {them, you} multisig and
then claw back the coins after you think you've been paid.
As such there is no risk of anyone sneaking in CLTV locked funds for
on you except by virtue of spectacular software bugs that would likely
cause you to destroy funds in a zillion other ways first.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 17:44:50
in reply to nevent1q…u9dq
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:50Event JSON
{
"id": "30f57101f97dc55e781970494c630eda471f4bd74268a86c5f6cb96c11d6aee6",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686159890,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"daf39e0a1dbaca24b6e2fe7def727146701a8f2511c7e675caee839a069071e5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1f054efa8fedd9d00fac40c98ddd32202619e0086506b27705fbcce045d37c07",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:48 PM, xor via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This clearly says that funds can be frozen.\n\u003e\u003e Can the BIP65-thing be used to freeze funds or can it not be?\n\u003e This language definitely trips up or worries several folks - it's been\n\u003e mentioned a few times before.\n\u003e\n\u003e The user _chooses_ to freeze _their own_ funds. It is not an unwilling act\n\u003e of force, which many assume when they see the phrase \"freeze funds.\"\n\n\nThe most frequent related point of confusion I see is that people have\na dangerously wrong mental model of how scrpitpubkeys work.\n\nIt seems people think that wallets will infer whatever they can\npossibly spend and display that. This is not how wallets work, and if\nany wallet were ever created like that its users would immediately go\nbroke (and it's author should be taken out and shot. :) ).\n\nRather, wallets must only display funds paid to scriptpubkeys (also\naddresses) they actually generated or, at least, would have generated.\n\nOtherwise someone can just create a 1 of 2 {them, you} multisig and\nthen claw back the coins after you think you've been paid.\n\nAs such there is no risk of anyone sneaking in CLTV locked funds for\non you except by virtue of spectacular software bugs that would likely\ncause you to destroy funds in a zillion other ways first.",
"sig": "ab69cf124bb8b0af8a62e2c5f56691c25cfabd59cc851a3c68d9b304bcfe1a046067760d877cf02b2ea522a67ed87263647edc99c5c6c78eaec7b61a7463c0f8"
}