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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B87C0176
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Jun 2020 02:34:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDC42042E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Jun 2020 02:34:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id z9uGekJ2S9Ns
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Jun 2020 02:34:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40141.protonmail.ch (mail-40141.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.141])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 176E220343
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Jun 2020 02:34:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 02:34:03 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1590978847;
bh=F8Jn/oebJ8bhS+rpEGEq9sCJmxxIFSn6XuqBqfqTusM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=V0utzoA4dPcTe4yw9dhmCAfF8Hc62Xmk4cLWT4IoUmCmfvboMklVS3ICSlpd5aCUd
fOZiLrNvY6Z8FBcQ+FbGLqLVDz9thnIoKPO79jev0dd5FUJ/OyhKKIe+6aFRMw4/4w
SZEu/VzZfC6uXWrJJnTEeDpRB30Uh+N/iUCaT/cw=
To: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <WKC6zH0X8ad2bK_JwklQegyJBKf5rTp1Ub_fPPPkS_EeIkIoc_wcRd9k3a_aq6sFIZ3-gOtG9ubWq3gTPG5fZW5aA1s_2C8-emEsr67Qxjk=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv7TjZn6+j10a_X_vCG3Qn1Fv19uidw50Cf38NNUvp8m+uh2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <82d90d57-ad07-fc7d-4aca-2b227ac2068d@riseup.net>
<CAPv7TjY9h8n-nK_CPiYCWYDcbXpT1gfRMQDgf9VUkcR532rxOw@mail.gmail.com>
<VxL93WE7bDrK1riquTWTTEgJj9mDQ4W5CuhOgdnnDPeidw2ho6evVh4cLZLz0jEYMqejaD1tiLULVTXkNRbI5A7wSwV49qSwnXcTWCDJ96E=@protonmail.com>
<CAPv7TjZn6+j10a_X_vCG3Qn1Fv19uidw50Cf38NNUvp8m+uh2w@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] Design for a CoinSwap implementation for
massively improving Bitcoin privacy and fungibility
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 02:34:13 -0000
Good morning Ruben,
>
> That assumes there will be a second transaction. With SAS I believe we ca=
n avoid that, and make it look like this:
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0+---+
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Alice ---| =C2=A0 |--- Bob
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Alice ---| =C2=A0 |
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Bob ---| =C2=A0 |
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0+---+
If Alice is paying to a non-SAS aware payee that just provides an onchain a=
ddress (i.e. all current payees today), then the 2-of-2 output it gets from=
the swap (both of whose keys it learns at the end of the swap) is **not** =
the payee onchain address.
And it cannot just hand over both private keys, because the payee will stil=
l want unambiguous ownership of the entire UTXO.
So it needs a second transaction anyway.
(with Schnorr then Alice and payee Carol can act as a single entity/taker t=
o Bob, a la Lightning Nodelets using Composable MuSig, but that is a pretty=
big increase in protocol complexity)
If Alice does not want to store the remote-generated privkey as well, and u=
se only an HD key, then it also has to make the second transaction.
Alice might want to provide the same assurances as current wallets that mem=
orizing a 12-word or so mnemonic is sufficient backup for all the funds (ot=
her than funds currently being swapped), and so would not want to leave any=
funds in a 2-of-2.
If Bob is operating as a maker, then it also cannot directly use the 2-of-2=
output it gets from the swap, and has to make a new 2-of-2 output, for the=
*next* taker that arrives to request its services.
So there is always going to be a second transaction in a SwapMarket system,=
I think.
What SAS / private key turnover gets us is that there is not a *third* tran=
saction to move from a 1-of-1 to the next address that makers and takers wi=
ll be moving anyway, and that the protocol does not have to add communicati=
on provisions for special things like adding maker inputs or specifying all=
destination addresses for the second stage and so on, because those can be=
done unilaterally once the private key is turned over.
> >A thing I have been trying to work out is whether SAS can be done with m=
ore than one participant, like in S6
>
> S6 requires timelocks for each output in order to function, so I doubt it=
can be made to work with SAS.
Hmmm right right.
Naively it seems both chaining SAS/private key turnover to multiple makers,=
and a multi-maker S6 augmented with private key turnover, would result in =
the same number of transactions onchain, but I probably have to go draw som=
e diagrams or something first.
But S6 has the mild advantage that all the funding transactions paying to 2=
-of-2s *can* appear on the same block, whereas chaining swaps will have a p=
articular order of when the transactions appear onchain, which might be use=
d to derive the order of swaps.
On the other hand, funds claiming in S6 is also ordered in time, so someone=
paying attention to the mempool could guess as well the order of swaps.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
