Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <87y38jn5z8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:54:42 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <73F32BC6-751E-4F35-BE6D-B31170FC0A54@xbt.hk>
References: <CAPg+sBhuPG-2GXc+Bp0yv5ywry2fk56LPLT4AY0Kcs+YEoz4FA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87ftv3xerx.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<DAAB7568-A004-4897-B5B3-0FBBC6895246@xbt.hk>
	<87pnu6s3v5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87h8fiqn1z.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<20181214093002.p2nvfrlaycqblww3@erisian.com.au>
	<F9FE2267-0BCB-4C67-9AE8-3285B7459D51@xbt.hk>
	<87mup4hmq5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<2302A26C-FB9C-47D2-AF6C-4D2EF02FFAC0@xbt.hk>
	<87y38jn5z8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
Precedence: list



> On 21 Dec 2018, at 7:17 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> =
wrote:
>=20
> Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk> writes:
>=20
>>> But I don't see how OP_CODESEPARATOR changes anything here, wrt =
NOINPUT?
>>> Remember, anyone can create an output which can be spent by any =
NOINPUT,
>>> whether we go for OP_MASK or simply not commiting to the input =
script.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Let me elaborate more. Currently, scriptCode is truncated at the last =
executed CODESEPARATOR. If we have a very big script with many =
CODESEPARATORs and CHECKSIGs, there will be a lot of hashing to do.
>>=20
>> To fix this problem, it is proposed that the new sighash will always =
commit to the same H(script), instead of the truncated scriptCode. So we =
only need to do the H(script) once, even if the script is very big
>=20
> Yes, I read this as proposed, it is clever.  Not sure we'd be
> introducing it if OP_CODESEPARATOR didn't already exist, but at least
> it's a simplfication.
>=20
>> In the case of NOINPUT with MASKEDSCRIPT, it will commit to the =
H(masked_script) instead of H(script).
>>=20
>> To make CODESEPARATOR works as before, the sighash will also commit =
to the position of the last executed CODESEPARATOR. So the semantics =
doesn=E2=80=99t change. For scripts without CODESEPARATOR, the committed =
value is a constant.
>>=20
>> IF NOINPUT does not commit to H(masked_script), technically it could =
still commit to the position of the last executed CODESEPARATOR. But =
since the wallet is not aware of the actual content of the script, it =
has to guess the meaning of such committed positions, like =E2=80=9Cwith =
the HD key path m/x/y/z, I assume the script template is blah blah blah =
because I never use this path for another script template, and the =
meaning of signing the 3rd CODESEPARATOR is blah blah blah=E2=80=9D. It =
still works if the assumptions hold, but sounds quite unreliable to me.
>=20
> My question is more fundamental.  If NOINPUT doesn't commit to the =
input
> at all, no script, no code separator, nothing.  I'm struggling to
> understand your original comment was "without signing the script or
> masked script, OP_CODESEPARATOR becomes unusable or insecure with
> NOINPUT."
>=20
> I mean, non-useful, sure.  Its purpose is to alter signature behavior,
> and from the script POV there's no signature with this form of =
NOINPUT.
> But other than the already-established "I reused keys for multiple
> outputs" oops, I don't see any new dangers?
>=20
> Thanks,
> Rusty.

The question I would like to ask is: is OP_CODESEPARATOR useful under =
taproot? Generally speaking, CODESEPARATOR is useful only with =
conditional opcodes (OP_IF etc), and conditional opcodes are mostly =
replaced by merklized scripts. I am not sure how much usability is left =
with CODESEPARATOR

If no one needs CODESEPARATOR, we might just disable it, and makes the =
validation code a bit simpler

If CODESEPARATOR is useful, then we should find a way to make it works =
with NOINPUT. With H(masked_script) committed, the meaning of the =
CODESEPARATOR position is very clear. Without H(masked_script), the =
meaning of the position totally relies on the assumption that =E2=80=9Cthi=
s public key is only used in this script template=E2=80=9D.

Ignore CODESEPARATOR and more generally, I agree with you that script =
masking does not help in the case of address (scriptPubKey) reuse, which =
is the commonest type of reuse. However, it prevents replayability when =
the same public key is reused in different scripts=