📅 Original date posted:2019-03-14
📝 Original message:
Good morning aj,
When reading through your original post I saw you mentioned something about output tagging somehow conflicting with Taproot, so I assumed Taproot is not useable in this case.
However, it is probably more likely that I simply misunderstood what you said, so if you can definitively say that it would be possible to hide the clause "or a NOINPUT sig from A with a non-NOINPUT sig from B" behind a Taproot then I am fine.
Minor pointless reactions:
> 5. if you're using scriptless scripts to do HTLCs, you'll need to
> allow for NOINPUT sigs when claiming funds as well (and update
> the partial signatures for the non-NOINPUT cases if you want to
> maximise privacy), which is a bit fiddly
If I remember accurately, we do not allow bilateral/cooperative close when HTLC is in-flight.
However, I notice that later you point out that a non-cheating unilateral close does not need NOINPUT, so I suppose. the above thought applies to that case.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5…3ms3l
2023-06-09 12:54:27
in reply to nevent1q…zftl
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 12:54:27Event JSON
{
"id": "cc32ce6981367c653b223dbca349f2f2746b351bcbda95ffda344b76a9827afd",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315267,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"86a47a61621252784fd45b6d576812ee01ce9af9bd2a53aeaae914577c5267a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1e060ea2b483237119c426ebb1bfd8e6aa1bf3781dc58778e865aec5e92a4883",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-03-14\n📝 Original message:\nGood morning aj,\n\nWhen reading through your original post I saw you mentioned something about output tagging somehow conflicting with Taproot, so I assumed Taproot is not useable in this case.\nHowever, it is probably more likely that I simply misunderstood what you said, so if you can definitively say that it would be possible to hide the clause \"or a NOINPUT sig from A with a non-NOINPUT sig from B\" behind a Taproot then I am fine.\n\nMinor pointless reactions:\n\n\u003e 5. if you're using scriptless scripts to do HTLCs, you'll need to\n\u003e allow for NOINPUT sigs when claiming funds as well (and update\n\u003e the partial signatures for the non-NOINPUT cases if you want to\n\u003e maximise privacy), which is a bit fiddly\n\nIf I remember accurately, we do not allow bilateral/cooperative close when HTLC is in-flight.\nHowever, I notice that later you point out that a non-cheating unilateral close does not need NOINPUT, so I suppose. the above thought applies to that case.\n\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "43ebc7713ee9627eafd44fe725593c139daa4b768c214b0d3f559296203224819a5ea93e26da6f8b7ac3a99d9fd83dfcc3fe0946b968be054cc80d8c9f68ca10"
}