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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3541AD8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:15:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.136])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D823981A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:15:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:14:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1568956506;
bh=MZzc6SCRbXQJRynhNdSM/OOvqYQxbQWCuSRbbU2XtRY=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=iXqmov+/t5lvTqNFpS5cmViaR97D+FIvJXHwA8cu9nAGa86HYo6eutExyU9YWz/aX
Hd0MZBx1R0Spy/sHK5quaU73LH+95BSTStlLqo56lE0AAPRpNR7NcjNtFZfGMYn3wS
VqtHOBLcs0Y6al0iuvbWTXcsJdr2OgWQp7Vynwmc=
To: John Tromp <john.tromp@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <VuvyS-ZYh7UJON2y6iCp0KtCTKFqOxIqPzNETPForaK5QHBOoj4LxOVlsaDFb-c__t6GRYD8ZHWkQagDucyFD3kjElZhSuHvhen1RzqLxvQ=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOU__fznZ4EznXPoiM5E2HaTzafZQ3dKQmXHOPaG8PzASiOFcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1791.1568888841.8631.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<CAOU__fw11EmAJzay7-H7X3my5+xNGGo_BS6_1hphauPXTgbw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<IQ52_xPiESoJFzOk3QzRDJth00dtYquOnBkG3NXrORK0FrmIaCXf0Gxrnv-AYV94Q0sRLt03ejZyhOk3ZMhnPikoIkvG77ZRqhBbl86QucU=@protonmail.com>
<CAOU__fznZ4EznXPoiM5E2HaTzafZQ3dKQmXHOPaG8PzASiOFcg@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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] Timelocks and Lightning on MimbleWimble
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:15:10 -0000
Good morning John,
> dear ZmnSCPxj,
>
> > Which I suppose is my point: you lose some of the "magic shrinking bloc=
kchain" property in implementing relative locktimes, as you now increase th=
e data you have to store forever (i.e. the kernels).
>
> The "magic shrinking" of MW never applied to kernels. To validate the
> current UTXO set, you need to validate all the kernels, each of
> which is a Pedersen commitment to zero together with a Schnorr
> signature using said commitment as public key.
However, my understanding is that, at least with the original mimblewimble.=
txt from Jedusor, the signatures and the Pedersen-commitment-to-0 could all=
be aggregated into a single signature and Pedersen-commitment-to-0, if we =
were to use Schnorr-like signatures.
(it is possible I misunderstand this; I am not in fact a cryptographer.
Indeed, the original mimblewimble.txt mentions having to store every `k*G` =
and every signature attesting to it, although does not mention Schnorr and =
might not have considered the possibility of signature aggregation when usi=
ng Schnorr-like signatures.
There could be security issues I am unaware of, for example.)
In addition, the mimblewimble.pdf from andytoshi includes a "Sinking Signat=
ures" section, which to my understanding, combines absolute-locktime kernel=
s with partial O(log n) aggregation of the signatures that attest it.
Again, it is possible I misunderstand this.
It seems to me that neither technique is possible with relative locktime ke=
rnels.
Again, this may be merely my ignorance of such.
In any case, this is mostly moot and I ask only out of curiosity in order t=
o know more about kernels in non-relative-locktime MimbleWimble chains.
>Then you need to check
> that the sum of UTXO commitments (outputs) minus the summed block
> rewards times G (inputs) equals the sum of kernel commitments.
> Basically, the same check that is applied to individual transactions.
> > Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") is harder due to the `SIGHASH_NOINPU=
T` requirement.
> > I have tried to derive an equivalent to this `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` somehow =
by considering that the "reference to previous kernel" as being akin to the=
Bitcoin transaction input referring to a previous output, however it seems=
to be not easy to create a retargatable "reference to previous kernel" in =
this way.
>
> The Grin "Elder channel" design of [3] is similar in spirit to eltoo
> though, as the revocation transaction can be combined with the final
> close transaction to counter any closing attempt to an obsolete state.
> The design also offers some bandwidth savings compared to the
> Poon-Dryja design.
This seems interesting.
I shall look into this further.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
