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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E249900
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:42:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09917C3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:42:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 43FBfv6Rb4z9sBQ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:42:15 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhuPG-2GXc+Bp0yv5ywry2fk56LPLT4AY0Kcs+YEoz4FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhuPG-2GXc+Bp0yv5ywry2fk56LPLT4AY0Kcs+YEoz4FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:12:10 +1030
Message-ID: <87ftv3xerx.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:12:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:42:18 -0000
Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> Here is a combined proposal:
> * Three new sighash flags are added: SIGHASH_NOINPUT, SIGHASH_NOFEE,
> and SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK.
> * A new opcode OP_MASK is added, which acts as a NOP during execution.
> * The sighash is computed like in BIP143, but:
> * If SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK is present, for every OP_MASK in scriptCode
> the subsequent opcode/push is removed.
I'm asking on-list because I'm sure I'm not the only confused one.
Having the SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK flag is redundant AFAICT: why not always
perform mask-removal for signing?
If you're signing arbitrary scripts, you're surely in trouble already?
And I am struggling to understand the role of scriptmask in a taproot
world, where the alternate script is both hidden and general?
I look forward to learning what I missed!
Rusty.
|
