Author: Billy Tetrud 2022-03-21 03:41:42
Published on: 2022-03-21T03:41:42+00:00
The email conversation discusses a proposed coin-weighted signature-based poll for gathering information on soft fork proposals. The proposed poll involves pollees signing messages with support or opposition fractions for each UTXO they want to respond to the poll with. The poll results are considered at each particular block height, where the support and opposition responses are weighted by the UTXO amount and the support/oppose fraction in the message. Lightning channels can pose a challenge due to their ability to change balances. To solve this, one could add a block hash into the poll message, which would allow any subsequent poll message sent with a newer block hash to override the old poll message at the block with that hash and later blocks. Another solution is to remove the ability to specify fractional support/opposition and exclude multiparty UTXOs from participation.The issue of public key exposure prior to spending for current addresses is also raised, but it could be fixed with a new address type that has two public keys/spend paths: one for spending and one for signing. However, this issue is particularly relevant to vault constructions, where a "cold" key is the master owner of the fund, and "hot" keys have partial access. The "cold" key wants to be kept offline as much as possible for security, and so the proposed mechanism of indicating a long-term-cold-storage UTXO's signaling pubkey might itself require a softfork, creating a chicken-and-egg problem.The conversation also touches upon the possibility of adding an optional human-readable message into poll messages to gain a better understanding of why people are supporting or rejecting a particular thing. It could inform how to explain technical changes to make them easier to understand for less technical people.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T18:03:44.026047+00:00