(Probably Stupid) Thought Experiment \ stacker news ~bitcoin

378 sats \ 4 comments \ @kytt 7 Jan bitcoin

I'm not super knowledgeable in the technical aspects of Bitcoin transactions so forgive me if this thought experiment is stupid, but I was curious if something like this is:

at all possible
already being done in some way

Let's say I have a UTXO that I want to send, but mining fees are high.

Myself ('Party1') and another party(ies) ('Party2') sign, but don't broadcast, a new transaction transferring ownership of the UTXO. If transferred to multiple parties, there is a contract within the transaction that specifies how much of the UTXO is distributed to each party.

Party2 wants to transfer the UTXO to Party3 with a new contract. Still no transaction has been broadcasted.

Could something like this be done? Like a contract within a contract into one transaction?

view all related items

536 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 7 Jan

You're basically describing one aspect of lightning and most layer 2's. If you boil it down they're basically deferred settlement of pre-signed transactions.

Like all layer 2s that operate this way, Party1 can steal from Party2 by spending the funds they've transferred in another transaction effectively double spending them. So in addition to pre-signed transactions, L2's usually have some mechanism for fighting such double spending.

Open Dime is a cool riff on this. Party2 will only accept an Open Dime from Party1 if the device hasn't been tampered with, because it suggests Party1 never had access to the key that could spend the utxo on the Open Dime.

242 sats \ 0 replies \ @okpj 7 Jan

I’m a simple man. When I see Open Dime, I zap.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 7 Jan

that could spend the utxo on the Open Dime.

Ugh that could spend the utxos an untampered Open Dime gives access to

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 8 Jan

No such thing as a stupid thought experiment!