Author: Rusty Russell 2019-03-20 00:22:05
Published on: 2019-03-20T00:22:05+00:00
The discussion surrounding the potential problems of NOINPUT signatures on the Bitcoin network continued with a post from Rusty Russell. In response to another post by Anthony Towns, Russell argued that the differentiation between malicious and non-malicious double-spends is not convincing, as even if one trusts the sender, there are still risks associated with coins sent to them. Russell also discussed the two fundamental ways that NOINPUT could cause problems for users and suggested that more safety measures should be put in place for NOINPUT rather than fewer. He also proposed that having a "sig that commits to the input tx" could be a safe and inexpensive way to keep taproot's privacy benefits intact when using NOINPUT. It was suggested that this could be a standardness rule rather than consensus.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T17:40:56.575094+00:00