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
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC442D32
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21007483
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2607:fb90:7d5:dbf8:1ca1:7f3a:59b0:9f4f] (unknown
[172.56.34.81])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 977A5181075;
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:44 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoK=VNRMda8oRCtxniE6-vLwG-b=je2Hx+sD9sCzS--v9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMZUoK=VNRMda8oRCtxniE6-vLwG-b=je2Hx+sD9sCzS--v9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----O9A443LRCGB2UN0REF7PPEDVPHED9K"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <E63C347E-5321-4F7F-B69C-75747E88AC06@mattcorallo.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Simplicity: An alternative to Script
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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:49 -0000
------O9A443LRCGB2UN0REF7PPEDVPHED9K
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I admittedly haven't had a chance to read the paper in full details, but I =
was curious how you propose dealing with "jets" in something like Bitcoin=
=2E AFAIU, other similar systems are left doing hard-forks to reduce the si=
gops/weight/fee-cost of transactions every time they want to add useful opt=
imized drop-ins=2E For obvious reasons, this seems rather impractical and a=
potentially critical barrier to adoption of such optimized drop-ins, which=
I imagine would be required to do any new cryptographic algorithms due to =
the significant fee cost of interpreting such things=2E
Is there some insight I'm missing here?
Matt
On October 30, 2017 11:22:20 AM EDT, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bit=
coin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> wrote:
>I've been working on the design and implementation of an alternative to
>Bitcoin Script, which I call Simplicity=2E Today, I am presenting my
>design
>at the PLAS 2017 Workshop <http://plas2017=2Ecse=2Ebuffalo=2Eedu/> on
>Programming
>Languages and Analysis for Security=2E You find a copy of my Simplicity
>paper at https://blockstream=2Ecom/simplicity=2Epdf
>
>Simplicity is a low-level, typed, functional, native MAST language
>where
>programs are built from basic combinators=2E Like Bitcoin Script,
>Simplicity
>is designed to operate at the consensus layer=2E While one can write
>Simplicity by hand, it is expected to be the target of one, or
>multiple,
>front-end languages=2E
>
>Simplicity comes with formal denotational semantics (i=2Ee=2E semantics o=
f
>what
>programs compute) and formal operational semantics (i=2Ee=2E semantics of
>how
>programs compute)=2E These are both formalized in the Coq proof assistant
>and
>proven equivalent=2E
>
>Formal denotational semantics are of limited value unless one can use
>them
>in practice to reason about programs=2E I've used Simplicity's formal
>semantics to prove correct an implementation of the SHA-256 compression
>function written in Simplicity=2E I have also implemented a variant of
>ECDSA
>signature verification in Simplicity, and plan to formally validate its
>correctness along with the associated elliptic curve operations=2E
>
>Simplicity comes with easy to compute static analyses that can compute
>bounds on the space and time resources needed for evaluation=2E This is
>important for both node operators, so that the costs are knows before
>evaluation, and for designing Simplicity programs, so that
>smart-contract
>participants can know the costs of their contract before committing to
>it=2E
>
>As a native MAST language, unused branches of Simplicity programs are
>pruned at redemption time=2E This enhances privacy, reduces the block
>weight
>used, and can reduce space and time resource costs needed for
>evaluation=2E
>
>To make Simplicity practical, jets replace common Simplicity
>expressions
>(identified by their MAST root) and directly implement them with C
>code=2E I
>anticipate developing a broad set of useful jets covering arithmetic
>operations, elliptic curve operations, and cryptographic operations
>including hashing and digital signature validation=2E
>
>The paper I am presenting at PLAS describes only the foundation of the
>Simplicity language=2E The final design includes extensions not covered
>in
>the paper, including
>
>- full convent support, allowing access to all transaction data=2E
>- support for signature aggregation=2E
>- support for delegation=2E
>
>Simplicity is still in a research and development phase=2E I'm working
>to
>produce a bare-bones SDK that will include
>
>- the formal semantics and correctness proofs in Coq
>- a Haskell implementation for constructing Simplicity programs
>- and a C interpreter for Simplicity=2E
>
>After an SDK is complete the next step will be making Simplicity
>available
>in the Elements project <https://elementsproject=2Eorg/> so that anyone
>can
>start experimenting with Simplicity in sidechains=2E Only after extensive
>vetting would it be suitable to consider Simplicity for inclusion in
>Bitcoin=2E
>
>Simplicity has a long ways to go still, and this work is not intended
>to
>delay consideration of the various Merkelized Script proposals that are
>currently ongoing=2E
------O9A443LRCGB2UN0REF7PPEDVPHED9K
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><body>I admittedly haven't had a chance to read the =
paper in full details, but I was curious how you propose dealing with "=
;jets" in something like Bitcoin=2E AFAIU, other similar systems are l=
eft doing hard-forks to reduce the sigops/weight/fee-cost of transactions e=
very time they want to add useful optimized drop-ins=2E For obvious reasons=
, this seems rather impractical and a potentially critical barrier to adopt=
ion of such optimized drop-ins, which I imagine would be required to do any=
new cryptographic algorithms due to the significant fee cost of interpreti=
ng such things=2E<br>
<br>
Is there some insight I'm missing here?<br>
<br>
Matt<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On October 30, 2017 11:22:20 AM EDT=
, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundat=
ion=2Eorg> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt =
0pt 0pt 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1=
ex;">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I've
been working on the design and implementation of an alternative to=20
Bitcoin Script, which I call Simplicity=2E Today, I am presenting my=
=20
design at the <a href=3D"http://plas2017=2Ecse=2Ebuffalo=2Eedu/" target=3D=
"_blank">PLAS 2017 Workshop</a> on Programming Languages and Analysis for S=
ecurity=2E You find a copy of my Simplicity paper at <a href=3D"https=
://blockstream=2Ecom/simplicity=2Epdf" target=3D"_blank">https://blockstrea=
m=2Ecom/<wbr />simplicity=2Epdf</a><br /></div><div><br /></div>Simplicity
is a low-level, typed, functional, native MAST language where programs=20
are built from basic combinators=2E Like Bitcoin Script, Simplicity =
is=20
designed to operate at the consensus layer=2E While one can write=20
Simplicity by hand, it is expected to be the target of one, or multiple,
front-end languages=2E<br /><div><br /></div><div>Simplicity comes with
formal denotational semantics (i=2Ee=2E semantics of what programs comput=
e)
and formal operational semantics (i=2Ee=2E semantics of how programs=20
compute)=2E These are both formalized in the Coq proof assistant and=20
proven equivalent=2E<br /><br /></div>Formal denotational semantics are of=
=20
limited value unless one can use them in practice to reason about=20
programs=2E I've used Simplicity's formal semantics to prove correct an=20
implementation of the SHA-256 compression function written in=20
Simplicity=2E I have also implemented a variant of ECDSA signature=
=20
verification in Simplicity, and plan to formally validate its=20
correctness along with the associated elliptic curve operations=2E<br /><d=
iv><br />Simplicity
comes with easy to compute static analyses that can compute bounds on=20
the space and time resources needed for evaluation=2E This is import=
ant=20
for both node operators, so that the costs are knows before evaluation,=20
and for designing Simplicity programs, so that smart-contract=20
participants can know the costs of their contract before committing to=20
it=2E</div><div><br /></div><div>As a native MAST language, unused branche=
s=20
of Simplicity programs are pruned at redemption time=2E This enhance=
s=20
privacy, reduces the block weight used, and can reduce space and time=20
resource costs needed for evaluation=2E</div><div><br /></div><div>To make=
=20
Simplicity practical, jets replace common Simplicity expressions=20
(identified by their MAST root) and directly implement them with C=20
code=2E I anticipate developing a broad set of useful jets covering=
=20
arithmetic operations, elliptic curve operations, and cryptographic=20
operations including hashing and digital signature validation=2E<br /></di=
v><div><br /></div><div>The
paper I am presenting at PLAS describes only the foundation of the=20
Simplicity language=2E The final design includes extensions not cove=
red=20
in the paper, including</div><div><br /></div><div>- full convent support,=
allowing access to all transaction data=2E</div><div>- support for signatu=
re aggregation=2E</div><div>- support for delegation=2E</div><div><br /></d=
iv><div>Simplicity is still in a research and development phase=2E I'=
m working to produce a bare-bones SDK that will include <br /></div><div><b=
r /></div><div>- the formal semantics and correctness proofs in Coq</div><d=
iv>- a Haskell implementation for constructing Simplicity programs</div><di=
v>- and a C interpreter for Simplicity=2E<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>=
After an SDK is complete the next step will be making Simplicity available =
in the <a href=3D"https://elementsproject=2Eorg/" target=3D"_blank">Element=
s project</a>
so that anyone can start experimenting with Simplicity in sidechains=2E=
=20
Only after extensive vetting would it be suitable to consider Simplicity
for inclusion in Bitcoin=2E</div><div><br /></div>Simplicity has a=20
long ways to go still, and this work is not intended to delay=20
consideration of the various Merkelized Script proposals that are=20
currently ongoing=2E</div>
</blockquote></div></body></html>
------O9A443LRCGB2UN0REF7PPEDVPHED9K--
|
