Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97DCA95
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  1 Nov 2017 08:44:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A726D1AD
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  1 Nov 2017 08:44:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265::71])
	(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
	by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A574F38ABA97;
	Wed,  1 Nov 2017 08:43:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171101:mark@friedenbach.org::6nYVaY+GZZ3aOgjo:aHRlz
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171101:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::DX4XskdRzdb/QxlQ:bTk6q
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 08:43:48 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.34; x86_64; ; )
References: <5B6756D0-6BEF-4A01-BDB8-52C646916E29@friedenbach.org>
	<3FE16880-868C-40BA-BCC5-954B15478FB2@friedenbach.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FE16880-868C-40BA-BCC5-954B15478FB2@friedenbach.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201711010843.49771.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merkle branch verification & tail-call semantics
	for generalized MAST
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 08:44:23 -0000

Mark,

I think I have found an improvement that can be made.

As you recall, a downside to this approach is that one must make two=20
commitments: first, to the particular "membership-checking script"; and the=
n=20
in that script, to the particular merkle root of possible scripts.

Would there be any harm in, instead of checking membership, *calculating* t=
he=20
root? If not, then we could define that instead of the witness program=20
committing to H(membership-check script), it rather commits to H(membership-
calculation script | data added by an OP_ADDTOSCRIPTHASH). This would, I=20
believe, securely reduce the commitment of both to a single hash.

It also doesn't reduce flexibility, since one could omit OP_ADDTOSCRIPTHASH=
=20
from their "membership-calculation" script to get the previous membership-
check behaviour, and use <hash> OP_EQUAL in its place.

What do you think?

Luke


On Saturday 28 October 2017 4:40:01 AM Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> I have completed updating the three BIPs with all the feedback that I have
> received so far. In short summary, here is an incomplete list of the
> changes that were made:
>=20
> * Modified the hashing function fast-SHA256 so that an internal node cann=
ot
> be interpreted simultaneously as a leaf. * Changed MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY to
> verify a configurable number of elements from the tree, instead of just
> one. * Changed MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY to have two modes: one where the inputs
> are assumed to be hashes, and one where they are run through double-SHA256
> first. * Made tail-call eval compatible with BIP141=E2=80=99s CLEANSTACK =
consensus
> rule by allowing parameters to be passed on the alt-stack. * Restricted
> tail-call eval to segwit scripts only, so that checking sigop and opcode
> limits of the policy script would not be necessary.
>=20
> There were a bunch of other small modifications, typo fixes, and
> optimizations that were made as well.
>=20
> I am now ready to submit these BIPs as a PR against the bitcoin/bips repo,
> and I request that the BIP editor assign numbers.
>=20
> Thank you,
> Mark Friedenbach
>=20
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
> > wrote:
> >=20
> > I would like to propose two new script features to be added to the
> > bitcoin protocol by means of soft-fork activation. These features are
> > a new opcode, MERKLE-BRANCH-VERIFY (MBV) and tail-call execution
> > semantics.
> >=20
> > In brief summary, MERKLE-BRANCH-VERIFY allows script authors to force
> > redemption to use values selected from a pre-determined set committed
> > to in the scriptPubKey, but without requiring revelation of unused
> > elements in the set for both enhanced privacy and smaller script
> > sizes. Tail-call execution semantics allows a single level of
> > recursion into a subscript, providing properties similar to P2SH while
> > at the same time more flexible.
> >=20
> > These two features together are enough to enable a range of
> > applications such as tree signatures (minus Schnorr aggregation) as
> > described by Pieter Wuille [1], and a generalized MAST useful for
> > constructing private smart contracts. It also brings privacy and
> > fungibility improvements to users of counter-signing wallet/vault
> > services as unique redemption policies need only be revealed if/when
> > exceptional circumstances demand it, leaving most transactions looking
> > the same as any other MAST-enabled multi-sig script.
> >=20
> > I believe that the implementation of these features is simple enough,
> > and the use cases compelling enough that we could BIP 8/9 rollout of
> > these features in relatively short order, perhaps before the end of
> > the year.
> >=20
> > I have written three BIPs to describe these features, and their
> > associated implementation, for which I now invite public review and
> > discussion:
> >=20
> > Fast Merkle Trees
> > BIP: https://gist.github.com/maaku/41b0054de0731321d23e9da90ba4ee0a
> > Code: https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/fast-merkle-tree
> >=20
> > MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY
> > BIP: https://gist.github.com/maaku/bcf63a208880bbf8135e453994c0e431
> > Code: https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/merkle-branch-verify
> >=20
> > Tail-call execution semantics
> > BIP: https://gist.github.com/maaku/f7b2e710c53f601279549aa74eeb5368
> > Code: https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/tail-call-semantics
> >=20
> > Note: I have circulated this idea privately among a few people, and I
> > will note that there is one piece of feedback which I agree with but
> > is not incorporated yet: there should be a multi-element MBV opcode
> > that allows verifying multiple items are extracted from a single
> > tree. It is not obvious how MBV could be modified to support this
> > without sacrificing important properties, or whether should be a
> > separate multi-MBV opcode instead.
> >=20
> > Kind regards,
> > Mark Friedenbach