I made a quick screencast demoing OP_VAULT (BIP-345) with a little prototype wallet I've written in the last few days https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zwm5iHFyBQ
Discussion
Very cool man. Nice work.
I re-listened to your talk with nostr:npub1r8l06leee9kjlam0slmky7h8j9zme9ca32erypgqtyu6t2gnhshs3jx5dk last night after the post you made yesterday about this demo, just for a refresher. Good stuff.
Sucks that this needs a soft fork but I do wish you good fortune in the wars to come. ;)
Hey thanks! Yeah regrettable we can't do this stuff on chain without a softfork. But I think bomb-proof custody is an essential enough use case to justify it.
🤝
All the best to you sir.
If you're willing to indulge me, I have other Qs for you. Happy to send ya some sats for your time.
I rewatched your chat with Marty tonight and re-read some list posts.
- At one point you mentioned you could do something similar (w/o a SF IIUC) with Package Relay & Ephemeral Anchors. If that's the case, would it be pretty close to what you envision with OP_VAULT or would something be lacking?
(I do realize these are both non-existant ATM)
- Given the difficulty of implementing changes to CORE, as well as your neutral stance on activation method, would you consider a UASF and if so, is that a ton of extra work for someone or just a quick fork+merge and good to go?
Apologies if these are super-noob. I try to live in the weeds but am very much still finding my way around. Haha.
Thx in advance, cheers.
Sure thing, good questions.
) Package relay and ephemeral anchors complement OP_VAULT, but don't replace it. They're about relay policy and how transactions can be replaced in the mempool, but they don't enforce any kind of new on-chain script rules. Sadly you just can't do vault stuff without allowing "tighter" rules on script validation with certain new opcodes, which is all a soft fork is.
2) UASF from a code standpoint is not really any harder than any activation method, but IMO it should be a last resort. The point of "traditional" activation methods like BIP8/9/speedtrial is not to ask miner approval, it is to help coordinate the upgrade with miners so that there isn't some portion of hashrate that might mine blocks that are invalid with the new rule set and cause a disrputive chainsplit. Whether or not this winds up being a UASF isn't something I would decide.
Too kind sir, thank you for your response.
This is surely just a blind spot for me as I though bip8 and uasf were somewhat synonymous.
As always, I guess I got more work to do.
I really appreciate you taking the time.
Was looking for a spot to zap you for a soda or two but no luck finding. Then noticed you're on the board of open sats so if you prefer, I can just send some there.
Any preference?