From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C321BF46 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f195.google.com (mail-ua0-f195.google.com [209.85.217.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FDEB177 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f195.google.com with SMTP id i3-v6so15959556uad.4 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:45:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Ybv9frSWq8MbeiG4jJuKWDMNK3hQOxzHr3+4SHcUbwo=; b=aLlOIVTXPPH6tdKHb5cDBefMfOuWiib0ysto80DJlJ9mxNgrETwh/lnIG/dQVeOrr4 jDMQgMtVYUi483lUfaOPj325EXICh+RlnH7CENYBBdZRyGLn8U7uhZP7NjhThJSPOTG6 8BK4+ooQfJLQuJhODjEquYsJWZ8SKtlo4jqXdSPF43RmG1H+FSbawD3b6xFGHWz0olDm Phu8XQ6PNtpUPc40HODS67MPEmsu/XFnnWc6YHyLZXxPnFJBdB3oe8L2hr2MWICPz1Vg NS43/BSIsMyBUJxha1XkkZ625YUOn+0C01v7B3AnpYLTkyljlnnfpG/MSNwvmeWoj7YM h2CQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ybv9frSWq8MbeiG4jJuKWDMNK3hQOxzHr3+4SHcUbwo=; b=MBZAkwKNXXoDRW8x0xXDpSaZvWb4de9QkPAQ73/SnQmAyRvIxyNe7QeumefMEe+RLz Az2h6ZmbHgBwc7krvQYHZAfdmWHyffIphn2VtP/mwIGDnGLT/jNBb1OkxHs/Mmg9lQDP dLZCTtk7V7ZVtBJhUseSVvw2vS2AmgrP48C3z0iVsc0imY1pK9OYaux52nucMbdhfLWj tXgQP1FR4HVFKQy6/dG7ThV10ct32/DjQ6qr807KbSyh9Hk43DbkeSBrHBv+w+hR4gw+ YLeeyeYE7SvkZDwAiQ+rWDqOz/Hh7OCv5luay659vjLs0A4srHL4WVRhsPR1uICk5iDr 8hBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfv4Lq3KriOCxYZ1XbaqcsZBaVhGxfgrp7b/dO4vrfGV6+DlcN4 fwDuJn37DZzMeXvXrxMq+sNcE/NMTJY/DNZDPMQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp9qdMethZP/WatESjXDrwzsiFyjlEPuDOdbCciSRz1BYKdbe50HKZXkk7j9//hnKMT7jsADlBU1Hcy11udpWQ= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1b6c:: with SMTP id n44-v6mr3373833uai.194.1527119109544; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:45:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a67:5184:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:45:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:09 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3DjwXmQ3s9g3Y13ep83VWJsGiRw Message-ID: To: Natanael , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Should Graftroot be optional? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:45:10 -0000 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev 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.