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
|
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 E9A7F6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:36:34 +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 1D30FA8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 219A938A0C4E;
Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:36:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171001:mail@felixweis.com::ZebJzr=wbHlmI4vt:acP4i
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171001:mark@friedenbach.org::uBEXdIpHwrjrf4zv:acOOW
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171001:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::hE2NLB=sKIqTOoB0:4LT2
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Felix Weis <mail@felixweis.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:36:05 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.34; x86_64; ; )
References: <201710010113.30518.luke@dashjr.org>
<D811BF0D-8286-4A40-A443-09147E4EADDD@friedenbach.org>
<CAMnWzuULmHsiC8CSHZRHS7nJAgHBVMCUfSR-0Si31YSQFeGfbQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMnWzuULmHsiC8CSHZRHS7nJAgHBVMCUfSR-0Si31YSQFeGfbQ@mail.gmail.com>
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
Message-Id: <201710011736.06471.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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] Version 1 witness programs (first draft)
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: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:36:35 -0000
BIP 115 provides fork-independent opt-in replay protection, which can be us=
ed=20
in combination with the new signature condition scripts in this proposal.
Perhaps the code can have a flag for new altcoins to easily make it mandato=
ry=20
(and we can use it on testnet?).
Luke
On Sunday 01 October 2017 11:22:30 AM Felix Weis wrote:
> Just a simple suggestion since the signature format is changed. Can this =
be
> designed so that possible future hard forks can simply change 1 constant =
in
> the code and turn on cross chain replay protection?
>=20
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:05 PM Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Clean stack should be eliminated for other possible future uses, the mo=
st
> > obvious of which is recursive tail-call for general computation
> > capability. I=E2=80=99m not arguing for that at this time, just arguing=
that we
> > shouldn=E2=80=99t prematurely cut off an easy implementation of such sh=
ould we
> > want to. Clean stack must still exist as policy for future soft-fork
> > safety, but being a consensus requirement was only to avoid witness
> > malleability, which committing to the size of the witness also
> > accomplishes.
> >=20
> > Committing to the number of witness elements is fully sufficient, and
> > using the number of elements avoids problems of not knowing the actual
> > size in bytes at the time of signing, e.g. because the witness contains
> > a merkle proof generated by another party from an unbalanced tree, and
> > unbalanced trees are expected to be common (so that elements can be
> > placed higher in the tree in accordance with their higher expected
> > probability of usage). Other future extensions might also have
> > variable-length proofs.
> >=20
> > > On Sep 30, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > >=20
> > > Should it perhaps commit to the length of the serialised witness data
> >=20
> > instead
> >=20
> > > or additionally? Now that signatures are no longer variable-length,
> >=20
> > that'd be
> >=20
> > > possible...
> > >=20
> > > As far as tail-call needs are concerned, CLEANSTACK wouldn't have been
> >=20
> > checked
> >=20
> > > until AFTER the tail-call in the first draft. But I suppose eliminati=
ng
> >=20
> > it for
> >=20
> > > other possible future purposes is still useful.
> > >=20
> > > Luke
> >=20
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
