Anti-fee-sniping in taproot transactions

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 326 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: This document proposes a certain type of wallet behaviour which uses BIP341 taproot[1].
3. Name the object that changes: BIP341, PTLC, HTLC.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 326 at the status the text itself states: Draft.
• The object that has to change is BIP341, PTLC, HTLC. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• This page is not a guide to moving funds.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What is the timeout in Anti-fee-sniping in taproot transactions, and who can take the coins when it expires?
• Which chain, if any, adjudicates the dispute?
• Which fields are committed: BIP341, PTLC, HTLC?

Terms

BIP 326

The public text titled Anti-fee-sniping in taproot transactions.

Draft

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A payment or a bridge that cannot name the dispute path is a custodial promise with extra steps.

What the design proposes

• This document proposes a certain type of wallet behaviour which uses BIP341 taproot[1].
• It provides a greater anonymity set for off-chain protocols which will make use of point-time-locked contracts (PTLCs) such as CoinSwap, Lightning and Discrete Log Contracts.
• With taproot recently added to bitcoin, and wallet software about to implement taproot wallets, we are in a unique position to improve the privacy of off-chain protocols if we act soon.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: It provides a greater anonymity set for off-chain protocols which will make use of point-time-locked contracts (PTLCs) such as CoinSwap, Lightning and Discrete Log Contracts.
• Locate BIP341, PTLC, HTLC in BIP 326 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A specification of a hash lock is not a working route, and not a guarantee the counterparty is online.
• This page is not a guide to moving funds.
• The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 326 when a pitch says 'Anti-fee-sniping in taproot transactions' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.