Open rabbitholiness opened 3 months ago
That makes sense to me. I wonder what a good way is to break this down? You could go by:
Probably more dimensions to this. Maybe products and approaches can be defined by what they optimize for? One product is about minimal cost (no hardware devices, no time locks...), another one is about preventing collusion (kids scheming with the lawyer...), another one about robustness... (software/hardware going away over the years, only use established standards)? Not really sure, just thinking out loud in the hope that it helps.
I'd also suggest studying Casa, Unchained, Nunchuk, and any other existing inheritance solution. I believe each one's design is distinct with different tradeoffs. BDC/BDG should determine whether we think all 3 are legitimate/should be recommended in certain cases, and if so, do that, along with why and pros/cons.
I'm also aware of potential solutions which are similar to what Michael proposed but don't require continual on-chain transactions to reset a relative timelock. This would be a pre-covenant design which presigns transactions and deletes the private key. I believe Liana has implemented something along these lines (but not for inheritance). There's pros/cons to this approach as well.
In the context of publishing the Inheritance Wallet reference design, @moneyball brought up the point that using relative timelocks can be costly for the users and, more importantly, that since their isn’t a clear best solution for inheritance, other approaches should be described as well.
I agree with the basic criticism here. So the goal of this issue is to to clarify and to outline the additional content around inheritance. An approach that I think could work would be to:
I'm open to other and/or additional suggestions as to how to structure this.