Author: Erik Aronesty 2016-08-04 12:43:34
Published on: 2016-08-04T12:43:34+00:00
On the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Matthew Roberts proposed the idea of creating a new address type with a reversal key and settlement layer that can be used to revoke transactions. However, it was pointed out by Luke Dashjr that this doesn't make sense at the address level since addresses represent the recipient and not the sender. Andrew Johnson suggested a new type of UTXO that is only valid to be spent as an nLockTime transaction and can be reversed by some sort of RBF-type transaction within that time period. But, he also noted that this won't work if the keys are compromised, and suggested the need for a third distinct key required for the refund TXN that's separate from the keys used to sign the initial nLockTime TXN. The refund TXN would also need to be able to go to a new address entirely. Matthew Roberts agreed with Johnson's proposal, stating that given the requirements that a centralized exchange has, it is the best solution so far. He explained that the idea involves a new type of output script that forces the redeemer to use a designated output script template in the redeeming transaction, meaning that people can be forced to send coins into another transaction with "relative lock-timed" outputs. The new transaction can then only be redeemed at the destination after the relative lock-time expires or it can be moved beforehand to a designated offline recovery address. Roberts also noted the problem with nLockTimed transactions being that the centralized exchange wouldn't know ahead of time where those locked transactions need to go or the amount that needs to be signed, so private keys would have to be kept around.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T19:17:57.156725+00:00