Author: Rusty Russell 2018-12-19 00:39:26
Published on: 2018-12-19T00:39:26+00:00
The discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around the safety of using OP_MASK as opposed to simply removing the commitment to script with NOINPUT. Anthony Towns argues that if it is not safer in practice, then adding the complexity of mask complexity would result in no gain. However, if it is safer, then it could prevent people from losing funds. Rusty Russell argues that every security measure may seem overkill until someone gets burnt, and that there are many complexities that can be added that would prevent loss of funds in a theoretical case. He also states that in lightning, there are more ways to lose funds via secret reuse than in non-lightning transactions. In response to the debate on whether or not to use GetMaskedScript(), Russell argues that it is an overkill for only a small number of script templates that need NOINPUT. He suggests creating the simplest possible implementation. The debate continues on the practicality and necessity of using OP_MASK versus NOINPUT.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T15:21:46.037097+00:00