Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CACF4A55
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 22 May 2019 02:51:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch
	[185.70.40.135])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D9655D0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 22 May 2019 02:51:58 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 02:51:52 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
	s=default; t=1558493516;
	bh=rWR+nS4a+ZY/97slFh4MjrQf06n3CtwmdbDe9CnoLkw=;
	h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
	From;
	b=tcznLXhUPbRtuLCoF+z7HAPeoZkprmacbRWuahL8ye8bYWQTXZMlY1A+Alc5bCSol
	eSw66KXFiKGk4wHA/46cUhGIxuIg+yjjgT+5UQ1j7ZqAA0GbwKIHoa9YcTEVNPFQHi
	xhkgqMbwL2mwczb9rWlDv2WAuYVvIC+FV7G4UlVA=
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <VU6YVz_dc9U4BhGd6WWNvYLS-DI1lBE14tpYdXEyIufTZ2OvqQfcWh6RVelCLWTQMWqiNsSf_AM3Pq2hzn3G62RIQwceLx54rRmD-zHCdNU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhgHyR5qdd09ikvA_vgepj4o+Aqb0JA_T6FuqX56ZNe1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhgHyR5qdd09ikvA_vgepj4o+Aqb0JA_T6FuqX56ZNe1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 May 2019 13:30:30 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Congestion Control via OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY
	proposal
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 02:51:59 -0000

Good morning Jeremy,

>If a sender needs to know the recipient can remove the covenant before spe=
nding, they may request a signature of an challenge string from the recipie=
nts

The recipients can always choose to destroy the privkey after providing the=
 above signature.
Indeed, the recipients can always insist on not cooperating to sign using t=
he taproot branch and thus force spending via the `OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIF=
Y`.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj