1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Return-Path: <joseph@lightning.network>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 467A3C30
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com (mail-pf0-f180.google.com
[209.85.192.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D453A141
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:03:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id c10so44385809pfc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:03:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=lightning.network; s=google;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
bh=w+E/P7QksoHpMn/Gbzbee9ObCTlUM6WJpBB2sGXm+s8=;
b=StDyLndL5WZp8oUezu2luomhFqWNnIVLZm4tR2aOM+RP8j5L5Li+v0usN8xXEBauDt
Y+bB5/WSIsuNJ8MAXWHCk6oivp18kmg9Oh1ckmEvT6nSwI3L7XNNmfppa8qODD86URrI
pXywOo+2H6FrAMruwNW46fk42XFoJnNswgL7I=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
bh=w+E/P7QksoHpMn/Gbzbee9ObCTlUM6WJpBB2sGXm+s8=;
b=BcLSlo+a2DCxs6n3qW7MJgj1T5S6gYZtlRVA2IqvhrMNqb3JeJLwqvjmyvOvJtsfWE
h/7XnsTPrIj5G/ArrSbyr+zUlZyGNJJqeNYdvu26gyWbcsdBGKBQIXo3Oe5OK8w6qNvn
8iHxOQVIt9bVguc06DggpxURXESa+L0JYm+s3+iRlgf8hwt3Ku92IZEFUUO0lNeWmjZa
CF//RtD2/ynVZ3KlBZbuETBt0yfMKDRJly8JHq+ylnP/fgozK9DNmMSRE3r+9EDHlskk
bu+D4CqG7u2s3z9t2/6ea8nF2O6BoIE41wPoaOEePHTL8VAk16Y6jNxIIs0JIHaFa73Z
LIWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTDLCuX/Lor1EpCTMXbcbDmNfbktOzv7IsKBOyr5zA7MzotJ1sjHk0BMLXQeQgL8w==
X-Received: by 10.98.42.150 with SMTP id q144mr62414905pfq.73.1456452188618;
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([2605:6400:20:11aa:189e:28a5:52ed:8948])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
t87sm14929990pfa.14.2016.02.25.18.03.07
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:02:26 -0800
From: Joseph Poon <joseph@lightning.network>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160226020226.GA25101@lightning.network>
References: <20160226010746.GB10295@lightning.network>
<CABaSBayZ3+UjuzMSuOypiMzB7_5iE3ssD6Pfu3oA0Nnm5tWMPw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBayZ3+UjuzMSuOypiMzB7_5iE3ssD6Pfu3oA0Nnm5tWMPw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU 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: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:13:08 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:03:09 -0000
Hi Bryan,
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:34:24PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> Well if you are bothering to draft up a BIP about that SIGHASH flag,
> then perhaps also consider some other SIGHASH flag types as well while
> you are at it?
I'll take a look at those proposals when drafting the BIP. I think for
LN, there is a single clean way to achieve outsourcability, but may be
compatible with other arrangements. I'm somewhat averse to proposing too
much flexibility before there's clear use-cases, though. However, if
others do have uses/examples for other sighash flags, I'd be very
interested while drafting this BIP!
> FWIW there was some concern about replay using SIGHAHS_NOINPUT or something:
> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-04-07.log
Yeah, I think the nice thing about SegWit is that you resolve
malleability without worrying about replay attacks in the event of key
reuse. That's why I think it's only safe to do this new sighash type
inside segwit itself -- if you only wanted protection against
malleability you'd use segwit, and not touch this new sighash type
(you'd only use the new sighash flag if you actually need its features).
--
Joseph Poon
|
