MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org>
 <d95eec37-269d-eefb-d191-e8234e4faed3@mattcorallo.com>
 <4b252ef6f86bbd494a67683f6113f3fe@dtrt.org>
 <c779648c-891d-b920-f85f-c617a0448997@mattcorallo.com>
 <CAPfvXfJe6YHViquT8i+Kq2QUjZDZyUq24nKkJd2a6dYKgygxNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoK=GONdGwj34PcqjV5sFJBg+XqiSOHFk4aQoTgy00YFG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <48a4546c-85b3-e9ff-83b5-60ba4eae2c76@mattcorallo.com>
 <CAMZUoKniYvmtYXOOOqpDGyaEyzG5DObwbFQhvaYkndSnJUmvkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaeKYABkK+StFXoxgWEhVGzqY02KPGOFjOtt9W8UPRr1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDaeKYABkK+StFXoxgWEhVGzqY02KPGOFjOtt9W8UPRr1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:27:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKnmvjOXq8NY_DnBQnRp6snxZ7hDCF1XQCndwCcp1rBO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc8b8005dd821667"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Vaulting (Was: Automatically reverting
 ("transitory") soft forks)
Precedence: list

--000000000000cc8b8005dd821667
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:04 PM Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Russel
> > the original MES vault .. commits to the destination address during
> unvaulting
>
> I see. Looking at the MES16 paper, OP_COV isn't described clearly enough
> for me to understand that it does that. However, I can imagine how it
> *might* do that.
>
> One possibility is that the intended destination is predetermined and
> hardcoded. This wouldn't be very useful, and also wouldn't be different
> than how CTV could do it, so I assume that isn't what you envisioned this
> doing.
>
> I can imagine instead that the definition of the pattern could be
> specified as a number indicating the number of stack items in the pattern,
> followed by that number of stack items. If that's how it is done, I can see
> the user inputting an intended destination script (corresponding to the
> intended destination address) which would then be somehow rotated in to the
> right spot within the pattern, allowing the pattern to specify the coins
> eventually reaching an address with that script. However, this could be
> quite cumbersome, and would require fully specifying the scripts along the
> covenant pathways leading to a fair amount of information duplication
> (since scripts must be specified both in the covenant and in spending the
> subsequent output). Both of these things would seem to make OP_COV in
> practice quite an expensive opcode to spend with. It also means that, since
> the transactor must fully specify the script, its not possible to take
> advantage of taproot's script hiding capabilities (were it to send to a
> taproot address).
>

So my understanding is that the COV proposal in MES lets you check that the
output's scriptPubKey matches the corresponding script item from the stack,
but the script item's value additionally allows some wildcard values.  In
particular, it makes use of the otherwise reserved opcodes OP_PUBKEY, and
OP_PUBKEYHASH as wildcards representing any, let's say, 32-byte or 20-byte
push value.

If you just used COV by itself, then these wildcards would be third-party
malleable, but you also have to sign the transaction with the hot wallet
key, which removes the malleability.

No need to rotate anything into place.

I hope this makes sense.

--000000000000cc8b8005dd821667
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_attr">On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:04 PM Billy Tetrud &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
illy.tetrud@gmail.com">billy.tetrud@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@Russel<=
br></div><div>&gt; the original MES vault ..=C2=A0commits to the destinatio=
n address during unvaulting</div><div><br></div><div>I see. Looking at the =
MES16 paper, OP_COV isn&#39;t described clearly enough for me to understand=
 that it does that. However, I can imagine how it *might* do that.=C2=A0</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>One possibility is that the intended destination is =
predetermined and hardcoded. This wouldn&#39;t be very useful, and also wou=
ldn&#39;t be different than how CTV could do it, so I assume that isn&#39;t=
 what you envisioned this doing.</div><div><br></div><div>I can imagine ins=
tead that the definition of the pattern could be specified as a number indi=
cating the number of stack items in the pattern, followed by that number of=
 stack items. If that&#39;s how it is done, I can see the user inputting an=
 intended destination script (corresponding to the intended destination add=
ress) which would then be somehow rotated in to the right spot within the p=
attern, allowing the pattern to specify the coins eventually reaching an ad=
dress with that script. However, this could be quite cumbersome, and would =
require fully specifying the scripts along the covenant pathways leading to=
 a fair amount of information duplication (since scripts must be specified =
both in the covenant and in spending the subsequent output). Both of these =
things would seem to make OP_COV in practice quite an expensive opcode to s=
pend with. It also means that, since the transactor must fully specify the =
script, its not possible to take advantage of taproot&#39;s=C2=A0script hid=
ing capabilities (were it to send to a taproot address). <br></div></div></=
blockquote><div><br></div><div>So my understanding is that the COV proposal=
 in MES lets you check that the output&#39;s scriptPubKey matches the corre=
sponding script item from the stack, but the script item&#39;s value additi=
onally allows some wildcard values.=C2=A0 In particular, it makes use of th=
e otherwise reserved opcodes OP_PUBKEY, and OP_PUBKEYHASH as wildcards repr=
esenting any, let&#39;s say, 32-byte or 20-byte push value.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>If you just used COV by itself, then these wildcards would be thi=
rd-party malleable, but you also have to sign the transaction with the hot =
wallet key, which removes the malleability.</div><div><br></div><div>No nee=
d to rotate anything into place.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I hope this m=
akes sense.</div></div></div>

--000000000000cc8b8005dd821667--