Author: ZmnSCPxj 2019-09-30 16:00:35
Published on: 2019-09-30T16:00:35+00:00
The idea of output tagging has raised concerns about fungibility and identifying outputs used in a contract. A suggestion has been made to create two domains, one for user-addressable destinations which users can use with their general-purpose wallets, and one domain for contracts that users cannot send to directly. However, there is strong opposition to output tagging as it would hurt the variability of how outputs look like and reduce anonymity sets for users. Special blockchain constructions should only be used in the "bad" unilateral close case. The discussion also covered the usefulness of `NOINPUT`, opposition to chaperone signatures, and whether BIP-118 and bip-anyprevout should be merged or not. The wider community's feedback on these questions is still needed.
Updated on: 2023-06-02T20:30:01.466266+00:00