Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AADA4273 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:38:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D528159 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lfaz4 with SMTP id z4so42094745lfa.0 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=3LV8FzdfCTpPGEOOP4ub+G9HGRd12pgOYlajCFXAI64=; b=ouYDOf53HKSKKh0/P3aXJAJ0YtxaHeNxCUb5s1H0691zQBPSL2M8jTXZYAHVmCG32w XZmCJuN369hKXkmKYUD/oUoIY9iT9s8jmPow6ayyzRlbh67YN6QmH2oKloq3vV76oUPM 0ZrpciIcuqNuNguUeEgb2ZBAvqzT70OLAyfUzvz9tjH40UrYt6wY5RvdfWI2b7oRm7Mt dmWcoHTR79N6terDE9/XbQqFh1FKZPbKE6CUbAIN/+PblTJ0yn6ASy9AMGWZRQ2IIFhY ode8oZwjClnN+q5LGa05dovQjFxTdg9uka/qtldG1b1GzXvo+NW0mt/CKhV7AbLbJZB9 MwuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3LV8FzdfCTpPGEOOP4ub+G9HGRd12pgOYlajCFXAI64=; b=ZQhEGNDaeDT24r/r8NwQfQelWoLjw8T2NIo26u6DzRlu5FoQAX6KENs6kmErHie0ld H21f3rV0W4ENE4mHT3q8iLm8tC+XAS04agt2pqZP1ThcFft/e/cWg4fQB+etf+HIb8qo 65UMVPU4Eg1txTbo94eeKQtSlIAMLogmDkcRf2+cqRoSLJzjK5XANtHvCdAovFbbBTj4 HOPqjakFdJt9qQbdiRI7QCVs5K39z3U/e8rkda0Vwle/YEOfWY8+uSMLSIL2x1MEjaLe at24L9EwpfDEjOTDk9rZ1sSVyT6P7bEC5XCyEKekA6W7OrOlRYPagNvrPaBG2lugQWwj 9ECg== X-Received: by 10.112.138.10 with SMTP id qm10mr11976978lbb.139.1448411883622; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com. [209.85.215.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vz2sm2937219lbb.35.2015.11.24.16.38.02 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by lffu14 with SMTP id u14so42133794lff.1 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:02 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkyVlVOzflrkIL25K0Hfl63JClzxf0ZLm7irFHE405EaNQtc5/vB7jD67af39Ti5ujFtcEJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.119.133 with SMTP id ku5mr13954750lbb.1.1448411882359; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.157.199 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.157.199 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:38:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:38:02 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: From: Jannes Faber To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb040cebcab60052552ab56 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:41:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY or "Wildcard Inputs" or "Coalescing Transactions" X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:38:06 -0000 --047d7bb040cebcab60052552ab56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Few issues I can think of: 1. In its basic form this encourages address reuse. Unless the wildcard can be constructed such that it can match a whole branch of an HD wallet. Although I guess that would tie all those addresses together making HD moot to begin with. 2. Sounds pretty dangerous during reorgs. Maybe such a transaction should include a block height which indicates the maximum block that any utxo can match. With the requirement that the specified block height is at least 100 blocks in the past. Maybe add a minimum block height as well to prevent unnecessary scanning (with the requirement that at least one utxo must be in that minimum block). 3. Seems like a nice way to the reduce utxo set. But hard to say how effective it would really be. On 25 Nov 2015 12:48 a.m., "Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all > > UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and > be > > a signature of some kind of message to that effect. > > I think this is true. Not *all* transactions will be able to match the > wildcard. For instance if someone sent some crazy smart contract tx to > your address, the script associated with that tx will be such that it > will not apply to the wildcard. Most "vanilla" utxos that I've seen > have the formula: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 [a hash corresponding to your > address] OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG". Just UTXOs in that form could > apply to the wildcard. > > On 11/24/15, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTXO > > script that causes it to return true. What Chris is proposing breaks the > > programmatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requirement > > that the secret be known. Granted, the secret is the only requirement in > > most cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always > > requires only that secret. > > > > This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all > > UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and > be > > a signature of some kind of message to that effect. I imagine the cost > of > > re-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra > > mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode. > > > > Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email > makes > > clear. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev < > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev < > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > >>> **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY** > >> > >> > >> Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting > >> near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links): > >> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log > >> > >> - Bryan > >> http://heybryan.org/ > >> 1 512 203 0507 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a > > techie? > > I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing > > (in alpha). > > I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist > which > > now accepts Bitcoin. > > I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . > > "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi > > Nakamoto > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --047d7bb040cebcab60052552ab56 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Few issues I can think of:

1. In its basic form this encourages address reuse. Unless t= he wildcard can be constructed such that it can match a whole branch of an = HD=C2=A0 wallet. Although I guess that would tie all those addresses togeth= er making HD moot to begin with.

2. Sounds pretty dangerous during reorgs. Maybe such a trans= action should include a block height which indicates the maximum block that= any utxo can match. With the requirement that the specified block height i= s at least 100 blocks in the past. Maybe add a minimum block height as well= to prevent unnecessary scanning (with the requirement that at least one ut= xo must be in that minimum block).

3. Seems like a nice way to the reduce utxo set. But hard to= say how effective it would really be.

On 25 Nov 2015 12:48 a.m., "Chris Priest vi= a bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This idea could be applied by h= aving the wildcard signature apply to all
> UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, an= d be
> a signature of some kind of message to that effect.

I think this is true. Not *all* transactions will be able to match the
wildcard. For instance if someone sent some crazy smart contract tx to
your address, the script associated with that tx will be such that it
will not apply to the wildcard. Most "vanilla" utxos that I'v= e seen
have the formula: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 [a hash corresponding to your
address] OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG". Just UTXOs in that form could apply to the wildcard.

On 11/24/15, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTX= O
> script that causes it to return true.=C2=A0 What Chris is proposing br= eaks the
> programmatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requiremen= t
> that the secret be known.=C2=A0 Granted, the secret is the only requir= ement in
> most cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always=
> requires only that secret.
>
> This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to a= ll
> UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, an= d be
> a signature of some kind of message to that effect.=C2=A0 I imagine th= e cost of
> re-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extr= a
> mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode.
>
> Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email = makes
> clear.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev <= ;
>> bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY**
>>
>>
>> Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today sta= rting
>> near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links)= :
>> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11= -24.log
>>
>> - Bryan
>> http://heybryan.org/
>> 1 512 203 0507
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you nee= d a
> techie?
> I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing=
> <http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
> I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryi= st.com> which
> now accepts Bitcoin.
> I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/= >.
> "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" -= Satoshi
> Nakamoto
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--047d7bb040cebcab60052552ab56--