OP_VAULT is a proposed upgrade to Bitcoin. You can decide when and where funds can be spent from a vault. If your vault is breached, you still have a recovery option before your time delay expires. #OP_VAULT #proposed #upgrade #Bitcoin #decide #funds #spent #vault #vault #breached #recovery #option #time #delay #expiresBitcoin_Maximalist
OP_VAULT is a proposed enhance to Bitcoin. You can come to a decision when and where funds can be spent from a vault. If your vault is breached, you still have a restoration possibility prior to your time delay expires.
This is an old idea AFAIK. Andreas made some video about it I think.
Has anyone addressed the concerns about using OP-VAULT to blacklist addresses and transactions, in effect introducing censorship into the base chain? I think this was the main concern last time around. For example, what if Exchanges send you Bitcoin with the restrictions of OFAC allowed addresses already embedded in them. SO now you can only send to whitelist addresses.
TBH, with how blindsided we were with Taproot, and the unintended uses of the upgrade, I am very skeptical of a change, specially if it is pushed through fast. Not saying OP-VAULT is being rammed through now, just hoping we will do our due diligence this time. I don’t want more surprises.
EDIT: OK, just read that OP-VAULT is recursive, which is worrisome. Just looking at the list of functionality it will open, including drivechains, spacechain, statechain, it’s like opening the freaking flood gates to EVERYTHING that could ever be conceived, today and in the future. This sounds dangerous and asinine.[https://blog.keys.casa/why-bitcoin-needs-covenants/](https://blog.keys.casa/why-bitcoin-needs-covenants/)
OP_VAULT (bip345) This is a bad idea.
Timelock-multi-sign addresses are already effective. This bip345 paper assumes absolute security of the backup-keys, and so there is no comparison under such an assumption with timelock-multi sign addresses.
In addition, this proposal creates a special new coins state entirely, a public in-flight utxo on the chain. This essential change is very different from any previous utxo (CLTV’s does not change the on-chain commonness of otxo)
A common scenario of concern is that individuals cannot avoid dealing with institutions, which will tend to pay individuals with such wallets (salaries, insurance, etc.) and use security as a excuse and low fees as a lure, so that the individuals who are waiting for payments become utxo third citizens and vulnerable.
OP_VAULT is a dangerous idea.
I like the idea. But isn’t the seed phrase like a Googoo Gillionth of a percent chance of someone taking your bitcoin. What am I missing here?
We need better self custody options. If I’m gonna be my own bank and store hundreds and thousands worth of btc – I want to be able to do so and be sure that disease, house fire, theft, robbery, natural disasters, sneaky relatives, or my own govnt cannot access my stash
So… not a change to BTC but a feature of a wallet
Not a bad idea though… all depends on the implementation and the risk of still having a “secret” mechanism to extract from the wallet bypassing protections
Sounds like an attack vector all of it’s own making….
Doesn’t this also have the implication that entities such as nation states can place arbitrary restrictions on how BTC can be sent/spent ?
Thanks for sharing the image :) It is part of an article I wrote that explains OP_VAULT in more depth in case anyone is interested https://river.com/learn/what-is-op-vault-in-bitcoin/