pull down to refresh

No, it still makes no sense. CSV timelock serves no purpose here. Just trust a cosigner if that's what you want to do, but don't act like you've come up with something novel. And it certainly isn't a vault.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 2 Feb

You’re completely wrong . The miniscript is :

(A or B)+C+15days
or
(A+B)+1year

You’ve got to trust nobody (you can self-host CS/C) and the second path of the miniscript (A+B)+1year makes it trustless .

Get informed , study how it works and you’ll see by yourself

reply

I'm glad to hear that you understand what they are doing.

Perhaps you will be able to help me.

In the event that I have key A and want to use it to sign with key C, how do you enforce a fifteen day delay?

reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 20h

it's enforced by the CSV op code , which nobody can change bc it's native at the protocol level and the nodes verify such conditions. The Convenience Service counts that the 15 days have passed and after those have passed it co-signs with C (one can self host CS/C if he wants to ) . If the CS / C doesn't work the user can sign with A+B+1year that way bypassing CS / key C , therefore it's trustless.

reply

the B-SSL whitepaper clearly states that the CSV is used to enforce the 2 hr - 15 day timelock. Is the whitepaper wrong or are you?

If key C, which is held by the convenience service (either self-hosted or third-party hosted), enforces the timer via a CSV timelock, you still haven't answered my question.

CSV timelocks like this begin counting as soon as coins are moved into the address. Who would want to store their coins in a vault that only lasts 15 days?

reply