Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:04:13 +0000
From: Bob McElrath <bob@mcelrath.org>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Message-ID: <20181128140412.GC22873@mcelrath.org>
References: <20181128005416.GB22873@mcelrath.org>
	<8690D3D0-3815-4779-A571-C75AA75F707B@xbt.hk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8690D3D0-3815-4779-A571-C75AA75F707B@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
Precedence: list

We are also prototyping the OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK mechanism using Liquid/Elements.

Given uncertainty about which features will actually be deployed on mainnet,
we're exploring all possibilities so as to provide feedback about the "best" way
to implement a covenant/vault, also including the OP_CHECKOUTPUTVERIFY
originally proposed by Eyal et al. That's 3 ways to implement a covenant/vault,
if there's others I'd be happy to hear about it.  ;-)  Thanks for the
OP_PUSHTXDATA ref, I'm reading now...  Personally I think the
OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK is probably the most elegant mechanism.

Thanks for the feedback!

Johnson Lau [jl2012@xbt.hk] wrote:
> This is incompatible with bip-schnorr, which intentionally disallow such use by always committing to the public key: https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
> 
> With the recent fake Satoshi signature drama, and other potential ways to misuse and abuse, I think this is a better way to go, which unfortunately might disallow some legitimate applications.
> 
> Covenants could be made using OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (https://fc17.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/bitcoin17-final28.pdf) or OP_PUSHTXDATA (https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/vault/bip-0ZZZ.mediawiki). I think this is the next step following the taproot soft fork
> 
> > On 28 Nov 2018, at 8:54 AM, Bob McElrath via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I have been working on an experimental wallet that implements Bitcoin
> > Covenants/Vaults following a blog post I wrote about 2 years ago, using
> > "Pay-to-Timelock Signed Transaction" (P2TST).  (Also mentioned recently by
> > kanzure in a talk somewheres...)  The idea is that you deposit to an address for
> > which you don't know the private key.  Instead you construct a second
> > transaction sending that to a timelocked staging address for which you DO have
> > the privkey (it also has an IF/ELSE condition with a second spending condition
> > for use in case of theft attempt).  In order to do this you either have to
> > delete the privkey of the deposit address (a difficult proposition to know it's
> > actually been deleted), but instead one can construct a signature directly using
> > a RNG, and use the SIGHASH to compute the corresponding pubkey via ECDSA
> > recover, from which you compute the corresponding address.  In this way your
> > wallet is a set of P2TST transactions and a corresponding privkey, with a (set
> > of) emergency keys.
> > 
> > This interacts with NOINPUT in the following way: if the input to the
> > transaction commits to the pubkey in any way, you have a circular dependency on
> > the pubkey that could only be satisfied by breaking a hash function.  This
> > occurs with standard sighash's which commit to the txid, which in turn commit to
> > the address, which commits to the pubkey, so this construction of
> > covenants/vaults requires NOINPUT.
> > 
> > AFAICT sipa's proposal is compatible with the above vaulted construction by
> > using SIGHASH_NOINPUT | SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK to remove the
> > scriptPubKey/redeemScript from the sighash.  Putting the
> > scriptPubKey/redeemScript in the sighash introduces the same circular
> > dependency, but SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK removes it.
> > 
> > One would probably want to provide the fee from a separate wallet so as to be
> > able to account for fluctuating fee pressures when the unvaulting occurs a long
> > time after vaulting.  Thus you'd want to use SIGHASH_SINGLE so that a fee-wallet
> > can add fees (or for composability of P2TSTs), and SIGHASH_NOFEE as well.
> > 
> > P.S. Also very excited to combine the above idea with Taproot/Graftroot/g'Root.
> > 
> > --
> > Cheers, Bob McElrath
> > 
> > "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
> >    -- H. L. Mencken 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:5bfe5494217527839717631!
--
Cheers, Bob McElrath

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
    -- H. L. Mencken