On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 18:06, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Meanwhile, both SIGHASH_NOINPUT and OP_MASK have the reuse-is-dangerous > property; with OP_MASK the danger is limited to reuse-on-the-same-script > (ie. if you use the same key for a non-lightning output and a lightning > output, you're safe with OP_MASK. However, this is far less likely in > practice).
Having had some more time to consider this and seeing discussions about alternatives, I agree. It doesn't seem that OP_MASK protects against any likely failure modes. I do think that there are realistic risks around NOINPUT, but output tagging (as suggested in another ML thread) seems to match those much better than masking does. Cheers, -- Pieter _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
