📅 Original date posted:2016-08-04
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 6:16:20 PM Matthew Roberts via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> In light of the recent hack: what does everyone think of the idea of
> creating a new address type that has a reversal key and settlement layer
> that can be used to revoke transactions?
This isn't something that makes sense at the address, since it represents the
recipient and not the sender. Transactions are not sent from addresses ever.
> You could specify so that transactions "sent" from these addresses must
> receive N confirmations before they can't be revoked, after which the
> transaction is "settled" and the coins become redeemable from their
> destination output. A settlement phase would also mean that a transaction's
> progress was publicly visible so transparent fraud prevention and auditing
> would become possible by anyone.
This is already possible. Just nLockTime your withdrawls for some future
block. Don't sign any transaction that isn't nLockTime'd at least N blocks
beyond the present tip.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:52:12
in reply to nevent1q…7tg9
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 17:52:12Event JSON
{
"id": "edec388f74b13a3213f20f57698955849d35a4f1e6f2aa4eb0d6c2ff3a4c53f7",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160332,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b2b2d73b9e521b0559a717c4dfca7729bdd61bd780bf3a932e9f89c290f08b52",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5fa65614daa1a3bc828af1262d2d174450583e107d13be1c7c749348113a77d4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"52570673f982f6512ed2b22dff613c1ef5cd37bc3c69965f108c9c626173a934"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-04\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 6:16:20 PM Matthew Roberts via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e In light of the recent hack: what does everyone think of the idea of\n\u003e creating a new address type that has a reversal key and settlement layer\n\u003e that can be used to revoke transactions?\n\nThis isn't something that makes sense at the address, since it represents the \nrecipient and not the sender. Transactions are not sent from addresses ever.\n\n\u003e You could specify so that transactions \"sent\" from these addresses must\n\u003e receive N confirmations before they can't be revoked, after which the\n\u003e transaction is \"settled\" and the coins become redeemable from their\n\u003e destination output. A settlement phase would also mean that a transaction's\n\u003e progress was publicly visible so transparent fraud prevention and auditing\n\u003e would become possible by anyone.\n\nThis is already possible. Just nLockTime your withdrawls for some future \nblock. Don't sign any transaction that isn't nLockTime'd at least N blocks \nbeyond the present tip.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "fde6dea99a502be716e939f125f4e31536c95be88c3ede183469645f257f95d1066bf46f15a5606f7197b84dc5c22cb71bad74c2a8aa692c5440f416fe273e6c"
}