Re: [bitcoin-dev] Examining ScriptPubkeys in Bitcoin Script

["James O'Beirne" <james.obeirne@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 12:51 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> But AFAICT there are multiple perfectly reasonable variants of vaults,
> too.  One would be:
>
> 1. master key can do anything
> 2. OR normal key can send back to vault addr without delay
> 3. OR normal key can do anything else after a delay.
>
> Another would be:
> 1. normal key can send to P2WPKH(master)
> 2. OR normal key can send to P2WPKH(normal key) after a delay.
>

I'm confused by what you mean here. I'm pretty sure that BIP-345 VAULT
handles the cases that you're outlining, though I don't understand your
terminology -- "master" vs. "normal", and why we are caring about P2WPKH
vs. anything else. Using the OP_VAULT* codes can be done in an arbitrary
arrangement of tapleaves, facilitating any number of vaultish spending
conditions, alongside other non-VAULT leaves.

Well, I found the vault BIP really hard to understand.  I think it wants
> to be a new address format, not script opcodes.
>

Again confused here. This is like saying "CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY wants to be a
new address format, not a script opcode."

That said, I'm sure some VAULT patterns could be abstracted into the
miniscript/descriptor layer to good effect.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1834 bytes --]