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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A748C000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:10:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A99403E4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:10:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id QiZLNV039K57
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:10:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6398E40441
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:10:47 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 13:10:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1625404244;
bh=wfJWq8NsX/U51ar64CdXmEc0P0r3s5ATEKjnlFfgBN8=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=jKYq6d01bX7iseauXjBswZ6cMPnxBzB22bJ/XsP4kkV7n3WbB0TCP8bR+CF9VSmOi
k0tYtgMeyuC2CJUzwZh43DNugAfIJXCtXS6fCQEvDdkl/pDUmEQPxI4xgA3UYblRaR
1IpA1fBH+4YiyCxriYDATb2uCNC8G+WuwUW65/kE=
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <gke1-m0LNsMpPk9TB2ZeeUGgBza7guUJWFWjEhGRMt3MhkYZ7FDOhytx8gY7lv5P2lojyO943NL3T7Jkgwardq2UfLktKcU0TZeQCD70hr4=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5g9bzPMinzlRiQhDmlVBo1OQyR516-RABcphP1QiiLBbS47dZwvz_ufqLndLcUZL4OApEZvP60k4hliVuK50lEJkN1qY0QppKx2uUXpEkLY=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhiqwqRjMboX8z_xapBq5=KOfP3eOSQzRcY-Cc7wq1gXUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<YEsEkExygpn5zEqfCXSt8duo9C0tgyx9YBTRejVn8ccwX2SQCPQVP5r2Nav6isQIbK8ED2Z-fYNwcN0VhXpxAIhCd3TWeU1et85cZFIVWdA=@protonmail.com>
<CAD5xwhggR_uC-Dx9S8kXj-j8L2EdXhmXdGmht05wC6nB3Xn_+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKgJxsknJ_TnQU1bvz3VyBHFaykXjDQAfsnxSzoeE1KJhbw@mail.gmail.com>
<5g9bzPMinzlRiQhDmlVBo1OQyR516-RABcphP1QiiLBbS47dZwvz_ufqLndLcUZL4OApEZvP60k4hliVuK50lEJkN1qY0QppKx2uUXpEkLY=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CheckSigFromStack for Arithmetic Values
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 13:10:49 -0000
Good morning Erik and Jeremy,
> The "for" arithmetic here is largely to mean that this cleverness allows =
an implementation of `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`, using arithmetic operation `OP=
_ADD`.
>
> To my mind this cleverness is more of an argument against ever enabling `=
OP_ADD` and friends, LOL.
> This is more of a "bad but ridiculously clever thing" post than a "Bitcoi=
n should totally use this thing" post.
Turns out `OP_ADD` is actually still enabled in Bitcoin, LOL, I thought it =
was hit in the same banhammer that hit `OP_CAT` and `OP_MUL`.
Limited to 32 bits, but that simply means that you just validate longer bit=
vectors (e.g. the `s` in the "lamport-sign the EC signature") in sections o=
f 32 bits.
In any case, the point still mostly stands, I think this is more of a "over=
all bad but still ridiculously clever" idea; the script and witness sizes a=
re fairly awful.
Mostly just worth discussing just in case it triggers somebody else to thin=
k of a related idea that takes some of the cleverness but is overall better=
.
On the other hand if we can actually implement the "Lamport-sign the EC sig=
" idea (I imagine the 32-bit limit requires some kind of `OP_CAT` or simila=
r, or other bit or vector slicing operetion), that does mean Bitcoin is alr=
eady quantum-safe (but has a fairly lousy quantum-safe signing scheme, I re=
ally do not know the characteristics of better ones though).
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
