> Sign-to-contract looks like:
Nice! I think it should be standardized as some informational BIP. This is a
similar case as with Silent Payments: it is possible to let users make their
own commitments as they please, but if it will be officially standardized, then
it will be possible to build more protocols on top of that, in a way which will
be understood properly by other nodes.
Before, I thought about interpreting signature R-value just as a Taproot-based
public key, and forming a commitment as a valid input, that would allow moving
coins on such address, but maybe we could standardize it in a simpler way than
that. In general, if a commitment would allow pushing any data, it could be
always extended when needed, because future commitments could be always nested
in the old ones, 32 bytes is enough to do that.
Also, I thought about including OP_RETURN at the beginning of each commitment,
to make sure it will be never pushed on-chain, but only stored and processed
off-chain. Another thing is that r-value is always expressed as some 256-bit
number, even in DER encoding, which means we can always assume 02 public key
prefix in all commitments, and simply convert it directly into a proper Taproot
address.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
