Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:48:31 +0000
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Andrew Chow <achow101-lists@achow101.com>
Reply-To: Andrew Chow <achow101-lists@achow101.com>
Message-ID: <f20b7586-26b5-2250-322c-3004563f561e@achow101.com>
In-Reply-To: <87wnwpabq6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <1dd8c285-e3f4-4f03-d608-103a5026146d@achow101.com>
 <5a4697cb-b9cb-b925-e78f-d5b53f025704@achow101.com>
 <87wnwpabq6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal
Precedence: list

Hi Rusty,

On 1/6/21 6:26 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hi Andrew et al,
>
>          Very excited to see this progress; thanks for doing all the
> work!  Sorry for the delayed feedback, I didn't get to this before the
> break.
>
>> Additionally, I would like to add a new global field:
>> * PSBT_GLOBAL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION =3D 0x05
>>   =C2=A0 * Key: empty
>>   =C2=A0 * Value: A single byte as a boolean. 0 for False, 1 for True. A=
ll
>> other values ore prohibited. Must be omitted for PSBTv0, may be omitted
>> in PSBTv2.
>>
>> PSBT_GLOBAL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION is used to signal whether inputs and
>> outputs can be added to the PSBT. This flag may be set to True when
>> inputs and outputs are being updated, signed, and finalized. However
>> care must be taken when there are existing signatures. If this field is
>> omitted or set to False, no further inputs and outputs may be added to
>> the PSBT.
> I wonder if this can be flagged simply by omitting the (AFAICT
> redundant) PSBT_GLOBAL_INPUT_COUNT and PSBT_GLOBAL_OUTPUT_COUNT?  What
> are the purposes of those fields?
The purpose of those fields is to know how many input and output maps=20
there are. Without PSBT_GLOBAL_UNSIGNED_TX, there is no way to determine=20
whether a map is an input map or an output map. So the counts are there=20
to allow that.
> For our uses, there would be no signatures at this stage; it's simply a
> subdivision of the Creator role.  This role would be terminated by
> removing the under-construction marker.  For this, it could be clear
> that such an under-construction PSBT SHOULD NOT be signed.
There are some protocols where signed inputs are added to transactions.
> Otherwise, if an explicit marker is required, I would omit the value and
> simply use its existence to as a flag.  Having two "false" values is
> simply asking for trouble.
Seems reasonable.


Andrew

> Thanks!
> Rusty.
> PS.  Perhaps we should change the name to PBT (Partial Bitcoin
>       Transaction) now, since it's more than just signing...