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
|
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 03377C000A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:36:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFCD4EC0E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:36:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=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 OgNwyrAovl3c
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:36:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0156E4EC03
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:36:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:36:09 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1615883772;
bh=O4Tc3/hbFVNHKxgj1Oey2+x2C9Qts74lTchau3mQQNY=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=Vaifkyivu4/dg4QCZ/laStbxNwJQbdGfdM3R+iDdwHiiJ8nMaUuXDGtHn/LAv8dER
kVMxVbdkg8cgbb4uJPqQeDqBiErQkb/QEf/eCqqSFkks+ibAbGZm55YbDWdFJlvhnm
TgF/ZS9egIzmOOOrJycZvCrv1U6Nw2QM48nJKpnc=
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <_SJunY4b2FhUkCj49-C_D7Uj1VYlS8qqZuO2-NIAEAIkCIfWEWVVgx-pNN0ZXlujGKUiU_hfcV-aq9yK6LHjHoK_5E0pYncVWtW99regZnE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhMjsYMRebN4Td614qOyAey24h7vQAjZjP_ETzvXJQBLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhhC1Y13p7KazfUOXFZ5vi5MA9EQ-scyafv4aNkjskoXBg@mail.gmail.com>
<plFEi9xoSnZ0TDJ7wH2dJx1F727FCSBrPsa2-26AXtveHKolt9bzTE1tiGIoPSjhgBfToVID2YHEaMGwwVU5dZ3Sozmz9UO-6HvbEDmm67I=@protonmail.com>
<CAD5xwhhMjsYMRebN4Td614qOyAey24h7vQAjZjP_ETzvXJQBLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Delegated signatures in Bitcoin within existing
rules, no fork required
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:36:19 -0000
Good morning Jeremy,
Thank you.
Assuming only keys, an easier way of delegating would be simply to give a c=
opy of the privkey outright to the delegatee.
However, an advantage of this technique you described is that the delegator=
can impose additional restrictions that are programmable via any SCRIPT, a=
n ability that merely handing over the privkey cannot do.
Thus the technique has an ability that mere handover cannot achieve.
If the delegatee is a known single entity, and S is simply the delegatee ke=
y plus some additional restrictions, it may be possible to sign with `SIGHA=
SH_ALL` a transaction that spends A and D, and outputs to a singlesig of th=
e delegatee key.
This would avoid the use of `SIGHASH_NONE`, for a mild improvement in priva=
cy.
The output would still allow the delegatee to dispose of the funds by its u=
nilateral decision subject to the fulfillment of the script S (at the cost =
of yet another transaction).
On the other hand, if S is unusual enough, the enhanced privacy may be moot=
(the S already marks the transaction as unusual), so this variation has li=
ttle value.
In terms of offchain technology, if the delegator remains online, the deleg=
atee may present a witness satisfying S to the delegator, and ask the deleg=
ator to provide an alternate transaction that spends A directly without spe=
nding D and outputs to whatever the delegatee wants.
The delegator cannot refuse since the delegatee can always use the `SIGHASH=
_NONE` signature and spend to whatever it decides provided it can present a=
witness satisfying S.
This is basically a typical "close transaction" for layer 2 technology.
On the other hand, one generalized use-case for delegation would be if the =
delegator suspects it may not be online or able to sign with the delegator =
key, so this variation has reduced value as well.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
