Replying to Avatar Super Testnet

The Bitcoin SSL paper is interesting. I will hopefully go on the Bitcoin Optech Podcast on Tuesday to discuss it with the author. He thinks he has a solution to the Vault problem that could give a lot of people peace of mind, and I think he is probably right. Here's why.

First, here's a link to the paper: https://github.com/ilghan/bssl-whitepaper/blob/main/B-SSL_WP_Oct_11_2025.pdf

Their model has users put funds into a vault with a timelock of max 15 days til they can spend it via the "cooperative" path, otherwise there is a "sad path" by which the user can unilaterally recover it after 1 year, or a "very sad" path by which a custodial service can sweep the funds for the user after 3 years.

The 15 day timelock on the "happy path" is meant to insure users against kidnappers, who are less likely to kidnap you for your bitcoins if they have to keep you captive for 15 days and convince a service provider to cosign your tx.

But this protection is undermined if you send your money into the vault around the time you sign up for the vault service and then let it sit there for 15+ days. If you did that, the timelock would expire, and kidnappers would not have to worry about keeping you captive for 15 days.

To fix this, you either have to stop your money from entering the vault until you are preparing to spend it, or you have to cycle it: every 15 days, you must send your money out of the vault and straight back into it again.

Thankfully, both options are doable with presigned transactions, which can be created and stored when you sign up for the service. So this problem is fixable without introducing extra liveness assumptions for the user.

Also, if cycling is used, there are regular mining fees to pay, but these can be rolled into the service fees charged by the vault service provider or VSP. The VSP can just charge their users a monthly or annual service fee and then use some of that money to broadcast/pay for their cycling transactions without further action needed by their customers.

Besides transaction cycling, I came up with another, cheaper solution and proposed it to the author, which is this: have the user's money start off in Key Q. Sign a transaction that moves the money into the vault, then delete Key Q, and store the signature with the service provider, as well as keeping a copy yourself.

As a result, if you get kidnapped, your money can *only* enter the vault, where it then has to wait 15 days. This method avoids the extra costs involved with transaction cycling, and is simpler. But it requires secure key deletion, which is difficult to do, though not impossible.

I think this vault proposal may give a lot of people peace of mind. I had a conversation with a nocoiner recently and his first question was, "what if someone kidnaps you and demands that you send them your bitcoins or they will kill you?"

I wish I had known about this idea so I could tell him how bitcoin fixes this.

Tune in to Optech Podcast on Tuesday for more!

Questions for author:

1. Why is CSV limited between 2h and 15 days? Is this a technical limit or a suggested limit for Custodians to offer.

2. Is/can there be an amount limit as well as or a combination of amount and time limits? So under 50,000 could be immediate, but over is 2h delay. (I guess no delay is somewhat gamable.)

3. Why in your taproot script is there A1 and B1 if these are supposed to be copies of A and B?

4. You mentions CS is optional, but does that then mean spending path 1 is impossible, leaving all spends to be 1 year delayed or does it just mean something else?

5. If you are notified of a spend that you did not authorize, what are your options? A+B are delayed for 1 year, if C is malicious, you are relying on trust to allow you to double spend and recover and even if not, don't you get stuck in a race to find who is willing to spend the highest fee?

Define "malicious actor" as someone who found a copy of key A.

You must trust the custodian to:

1. Enforce CSV in case of a malicious actor and send notifications.

2. Work with you to double spend the funds back to your control.

So if the custodian and malicious actor work together, couldn't they just take your funds easily?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I forwarded your questions to the author via telegram (I don't think he is on nostr) and if he replies I will try to remember to post his replies

I will probably forget though

Thanks, I actually thought you would ask in the pod but I guess you saw it just now.

I appreciate the follow up

Not yet. I will try to ask him on the podcast today, which we start recording in an hour. Thank you for the reminder!

I finished the podcast, but it went pretty poorly. My connection cut out partway through the first question I was asked, and when I finally managed to reestablish it, no one could hear me. So I did not get to ask your questions to the author. I did, however, send him the questions on telegram again, so we'll see if he replies.