The unsuitability of presigned transactions for vaults

Liana's relationship with the potential OP_VAULT opcode highlights a significant area of interest in cryptocurrency security and transaction management. The discussion points out that Liana, although not a direct emulation of a vault, would likely benefit from OP_VAULT due to its generality and ability to simplify key management and timelock processes. This simplification is underscored by the referenced twitter thread, which provides further insight into the technical nuances involved.

The conversation shifts towards differentiating between various approaches to enhancing transaction security, specifically contrasting the Revault method and the use of ephemeral keys with the concept of emulating covenants through trusted oracles. The critique presented focuses on the reliance on oracles for covenant enforcement, suggesting this approach negates the need for script upgrades while simultaneously introducing potential security vulnerabilities, especially for entities unable to support live Hardware Security Modules (HSMs).

Moreover, the discussion raises concerns about the practical application and development progress of vault-like solutions within the industry. It questions the lack of Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) that emulate the desired covenant functionality using simpler mechanisms, such as cosigning servers. This observation leads to a broader contemplation about the appeal versus the practical trade-offs of pursuing vault technologies, highlighted by the mention of Revault—a project that seemingly attempts to navigate these complexities.

Overall, the dialogue encapsulates a deep dive into the technological strategies aimed at securing cryptocurrency transactions, juxtaposing theoretical idealism against practical challenges and the ongoing quest for optimal solutions within the blockchain domain.