Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596FFC000B for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:52:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E7141723 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:52:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=chia.net Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rfaDj49eWL5F for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:52:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63FB141722 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id bu29so2260615lfb.0 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 23:52:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chia.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VJsTdSxIWUWUVqhWSLOgaJsQaRRkYRYaWb1X/xiXRPY=; b=aH6hzHm7hiqiYCvOSVgKVguPb6MBGe+wKCYJ+lg6hVVj4ifrARC4FPvJb9E3374SE2 QU8tgp1OHTlbXs7dYA97kUNwubaZasMewEN9sO9FvGCYtNaCj3vvNXm4UWKmUaSZ9azm dw0BbPT2FoZ0sUDAlX/M1b6/NdgA8PamE+JOcNjIMr8OpybOsYiXbIekwGoxqXaezJC4 u2EgQusJRuEhrkJD6k9Zv9mwDKs0R5pOuPmpwb47pZ9Jqx0UmJPteKwpMwn7VyhxS5wC X/F8OyMlerx9zP8dyh8yZAlW77WvYa1k/7QbOEnNbLrzzjJ1Cf2Ptli1q7Hute7Eu+JX O2EA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VJsTdSxIWUWUVqhWSLOgaJsQaRRkYRYaWb1X/xiXRPY=; b=a8EM2Ro+AVnxDsQMkCTq1kwVcFNQVOxwYJSxH06SjjMya2s6AqA6SuM6HVK0itnmeR 1tSxyzAiTHjhJHZpOtbE4jDUtE7n3cF738wwFRGDaVh7800My1x7quvieAUX3YePRL+R 5l355ex2hZb+lsxQFl8joPXSw64hbGB2QqkvsMII+w7nDw7YFNM+29PTp2auagaf8cSD JWmHvgw5BZc82S3+TDAbbWRv1aw2c1YhgcIdLKgWIUtVefVk3htlaH0LBH0M1WCB+R0X eYJU+6hjJxbT7753sZqyHfF5d3cHqq1AJDBQnWxCmGASUND0OZ6fwzRRnGgxyLXEGS2X QNmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JVz+BOxaVSHFyLFFsw84tu7/SUuWXbXTAOHKuVMmBaOkXaS6b CIJZnl+zAT8YhbgKc4FNlcmAsvaTVcT007jMNGlPYw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFMbzMFsp6Hy736baPdLS2dlxi1yzI/+GPEdPxNmNIdyp/w7LrbgccVVWgMwQoHg33dResmr+AUMGenaAgcU0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1585:b0:445:908b:ad71 with SMTP id bp5-20020a056512158500b00445908bad71mr18220822lfb.200.1647413540272; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 23:52:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220311044645.GB7597@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20220311044645.GB7597@erisian.com.au> From: Bram Cohen Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 23:52:09 -0700 Message-ID: To: Anthony Towns Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dddca205da505a0b" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:04:24 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin scripting and lisp X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:52:23 -0000 --000000000000dddca205da505a0b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 8:46 PM Anthony Towns wrote: > Note that PTLCs aren't really Chia-friendly, both because chia doesn't > have secp256k1 operations in the first place, but also because you can't > do a scriptless-script because the information you need to extract > is lost when signatures are non-interactively aggregated via BLS -- > so that adds an expensive extra ECC operation rather than reusing an > op you're already paying for (scriptless script PTLCs) or just adding > a cheap hash operation (HTLCs). > The CLVM currently supports BLS12-381 group 1 point operations which it uses to support taproot which I think is enough to support PTLCs but obviously isn't compatible with secp. In the future there will likely be a soft fork to include a complete set of BLS12-381 operations mostly to support ZK implementation. --000000000000dddca205da505a0b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 8:46 PM Anthony T= owns <aj@erisian.com.au> wro= te:
Note that PTLCs aren't really Chia-friendly, both becaus= e chia doesn't
have secp256k1 operations in the first place, but also because you can'= t
do a scriptless-script because the information you need to extract
is lost when signatures are non-interactively aggregated via BLS --
so that adds an expensive extra ECC operation rather than reusing an
op you're already paying for (scriptless script PTLCs) or just adding a cheap hash operation (HTLCs).

The CLV= M currently=C2=A0supports BLS12-381 group 1 point operations which it uses = to support taproot which I think is enough to support PTLCs but obviously i= sn't compatible with secp. In the future there will likely be a soft fo= rk to include a complete set of BLS12-381 operations mostly to support ZK i= mplementation.

--000000000000dddca205da505a0b--