📅 Original date posted:2018-05-23
📝 Original message:On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Consider for example a P2SH address for some fund, where you create a
> transaction in advance. Even if the parties involved in signing the
> transaction would agree (collude), the original intent of this particular
> P2SH address may be to hold the fund accountable by enforcing some given
> rules by script. To be able to circumvent the rules could break the purpose
> of the fund.
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.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 18:12:25
in reply to nevent1q…q4el
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 18:12:25Event JSON
{
"id": "31977731a6268f1f7d9fa0519207a377320d888fb5d9ea9d7f3e64e6efc432ef",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686161545,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e26b3d683cd7b5bec12686847cb6e45848c3e2dbd7f6b99e59a94b1bc41269f6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7c62f831f4e50bfa53395285a796a0b4e4c68fa4dcbe38017b3488d01efeaa9d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f14f3c71a4e63a12c842e4a50471263ada4b6cfde093fcb6588693a726b9b018"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-05-23\n📝 Original message:On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Consider for example a P2SH address for some fund, where you create a\n\u003e transaction in advance. Even if the parties involved in signing the\n\u003e transaction would agree (collude), the original intent of this particular\n\u003e P2SH address may be to hold the fund accountable by enforcing some given\n\u003e rules by script. To be able to circumvent the rules could break the purpose\n\u003e of the fund.\n\nI am having a bit of difficulty understanding your example.\n\nIf graftroot were possible it would mean that the funds were paid to a\npublic key. That holder(s) of the corresponding private key could\nsign without constraint, and so the accoutability you're expecting\nwouldn't exist there regardless of graftroot.\n\nI think maybe your example is only making the case that it should be\npossible to send funds constrained by a script without a public key\never existing at all. If so, I agree-- but that wasn't the question\nhere as I understood it.",
"sig": "3ec5d4895540197c3025380cd23c45590f7b5578a9b085125b12a13852199747969ee98b13c8d44ee824c296cdf693c7f94b3f9fab43845b29b0cc371af42e3c"
}