1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C37CF7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:28:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender-of-o53.zoho.com (sender-of-o53.zoho.com [135.84.80.218])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5EF7771
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:28:46 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1542896924; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc;
b=MIB5SmmZCG1JN6bHqtfG3QwTdrBsvanTbF9wc2htnIZlB4w97b4WsLPOaaKahKrLfQDpq7gQe+0b4vVl4mt6mlNyb6zKC2MgfyZEXMoAHVgioKAiiPdyhOAuX9rv1usKU5G2XkM11aTpaOtfF9NgwqX00SsHwRHjNRYVrhgD8Vo=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com;
s=zohoarc; t=1542896924;
h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results;
bh=31yLSRAwcm9dfl+YUFy99h1A1fsQe/1LEoIt+0Psmyw=;
b=ZGiyPIRQpR3Czl2h16URwP4i9cvgyemX2C80AWavug0LggWCGM8xxwAc6DeJF8ncyp//CvumfYkUf1ITktDso+QJHrmcZoAr04hXmC9lrmFaWM9Hc1aOJdaTivjMCvCuftps77aOmIjS9J5U4vmoYAJvNcqbnvRI3b9GiutQIlk=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; dkim=pass header.i=xbt.hk;
spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jl2012@xbt.hk;
dmarc=pass header.from=<jl2012@xbt.hk> header.from=<jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from [10.8.0.105] (n218103234118.netvigator.com [218.103.234.118])
by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1542896921764887.5171324645357;
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 06:28:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Message-Id: <64A86A3A-4633-4BE2-AE09-30BD136BCC2D@xbt.hk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_2A279FC6-858D-4FAB-9E82-126628860469"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:28:35 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoK==Bdn73Lc=swgf2F5_mqE84TR1GRBFhrFkn7kab4jBaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPg+sBhuPG-2GXc+Bp0yv5ywry2fk56LPLT4AY0Kcs+YEoz4FA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMZUoK==Bdn73Lc=swgf2F5_mqE84TR1GRBFhrFkn7kab4jBaw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
X-ZohoMailClient: External
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 04:04:44 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:28:47 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_2A279FC6-858D-4FAB-9E82-126628860469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
With MAST in taproot, OP_IF etc become mostly redundant, with worse =
privacy. To maximise fungibility, we should encourage people to use =
MAST, instead of improve the functionality of OP_IF and further =
complicate the protocol.
> On 22 Nov 2018, at 1:07 AM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:22 PM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> So my question is whether anyone can see ways in which this introduces
> redundant flexibility, or misses obvious use cases?
>=20
> Hopefully my comment is on-topic for this thread:
>=20
> Given that we want to move away from OP_CODESEPARATOR, because each =
call to this operation effectively takes O(script-size) time, we need a =
replacement for the functionality it currently provides. While perhaps =
the original motivation for OP_CODESEPARTOR is surrounded in mystery, it =
currently can be used (or perhaps abused) for the task of creating =
signature that covers, not only which input is being signed, but which =
specific branch within that input Script code is being signed for.
>=20
> For example, one can place an OP_CODESEPARATOR within each branch of =
an IF block, or by placing an OP_CODESEPARATOR before each OP_CHECKSIG =
operation. By doing so, signatures created for one clause cannot be =
used as signatures for another clause. Since different clauses in =
Bitcoin Script may be enforcing different conditions (such as different =
time-locks, hash-locks, etc), it is useful to be able to sign in such a =
way that your signature is only valid when the conditions for a =
particular branch are satisfied. In complex Scripts, it may not be =
practical or possible to use different public keys for every different =
clause. (In practice, you will be able to get away with fewer =
OP_CODESEPARATORS than one in every IF block).
>=20
> One suggestion I heard (I think I heard it from Pieter) to achieve the =
above is to add an internal counter that increments on every control =
flow operator, OP_IF, OP_NOTIF, OP_ELSE, OP_ENDIF, and have the =
signature cover the value of this counter. Equivalently we divide every =
Bitcoin Script program into blocks deliminated by these control flow =
operator and have the signature cover the index of the block that the =
OP_CHECKSIG occurs within. More specifically, we will want a SigHash =
flag to enables/disable the signature covering this counter.
>=20
> There are many different ways one might go about replacing the =
remaining useful behaviour of OP_CODESEPARATOR than the one I gave =
above. I would be happy with any solution.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--Apple-Mail=_2A279FC6-858D-4FAB-9E82-126628860469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D"">With =
MAST in taproot, OP_IF etc become mostly redundant, with worse privacy. =
To maximise fungibility, we should encourage people to use MAST, instead =
of improve the functionality of OP_IF and further complicate the =
protocol.<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On 22 =
Nov 2018, at 1:07 AM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">On =
Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:22 PM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br =
class=3D""></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So my question is =
whether anyone can see ways in which this introduces<br class=3D"">
redundant flexibility, or misses obvious use cases?<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Hopefully my comment is on-topic for this thread:</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Given that we want to =
move away from OP_CODESEPARATOR, because each call to this operation =
effectively takes O(script-size) time, we need a replacement for the =
functionality it currently provides. While perhaps the original =
motivation for OP_CODESEPARTOR is surrounded in mystery, it currently =
can be used (or perhaps abused) for the task of creating signature that =
covers, not only which input is being signed, but which specific branch =
within that input Script code is being signed for.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">For example, one can =
place an OP_CODESEPARATOR within each branch of an IF block, or by =
placing an OP_CODESEPARATOR before each OP_CHECKSIG operation. By =
doing so, signatures created for one clause cannot be used as signatures =
for another clause. Since different clauses in Bitcoin Script may =
be enforcing different conditions (such as different time-locks, =
hash-locks, etc), it is useful to be able to sign in such a way that =
your signature is only valid when the conditions for a particular branch =
are satisfied. In complex Scripts, it may not be practical or =
possible to use different public keys for every different clause. (In =
practice, you will be able to get away with fewer OP_CODESEPARATORS than =
one in every IF block).<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">One suggestion I heard (I think I heard =
it from Pieter) to achieve the above is to add an internal counter that =
increments on every control flow operator, OP_IF, OP_NOTIF, OP_ELSE, =
OP_ENDIF, and have the signature cover the value of this counter. =
Equivalently we divide every Bitcoin Script program into blocks =
deliminated by these control flow operator and have the signature cover =
the index of the block that the OP_CHECKSIG occurs within. More =
specifically, we will want a SigHash flag to enables/disable the =
signature covering this counter.<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">There are many different ways one might =
go about replacing the remaining useful behaviour of OP_CODESEPARATOR =
than the one I gave above. I would be happy with any solution.<br =
class=3D""></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_2A279FC6-858D-4FAB-9E82-126628860469--
|
