[BIP Draft] Co-signer Spending Policies

Posted by lukecarriere

Oct 28, 2026/14:38 UTC

The signing process in statement-v0 involves the event ID, outcome, and timestamp but does not specify whether the outcome is final. This omission could allow a co-signer to act on an initial answer that might subsequently be changed or corrected. To address this, a finality flag will be incorporated into the signed tuple, enabling evidence conditions to require confirmation of finality before actions are taken.

In scenarios such as escrow, the system will demand a final statement to ensure outcomes are definitive. However, if an attestor never marks an outcome as final, the template can accommodate this by allowing for a waiting period corresponding to a dispute window. For attestations utilizing Discreet Log Contract (DLC) nonce pre-commitment, finality is inherently enforced. Signing multiple outcomes for the same event in this context would expose the attestor's key, providing built-in security against conflicting statements.

Test vectors will be provided to define the exact bytes representing policy IDs. These vectors will be distributed alongside the chosen serialization format, ensuring consistent implementation and verification across different systems.

Link to Raw Post
Bitcoin Logo

TLDR

Join Our Newsletter

We’ll email you summaries of the latest discussions from high signal bitcoin sources, like bitcoin-dev, lightning-dev, and Delving Bitcoin.

Explore all Products

ChatBTC imageBitcoin searchBitcoin TranscriptsSaving SatoshiDecoding BitcoinWarnet
Built with 🧡 by the Bitcoin Dev Project
View our public visitor count

We'd love to hear your feedback on this project.

Give Feedback