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
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <kalle@rosenbaum.se>) id 1Z1FfL-00035z-J1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:05:43 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com ([209.85.192.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z1FfJ-0005bo-W9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:05:43 +0000
Received: by qgf75 with SMTP id 75so35935702qgf.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
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:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=DPXasPMv8JVi6R79bTev8p7xYdEd6eqKGhXFxxCYEjM=;
b=XCSu/GPpv31yckUo8lFUbp8ZfZZ4i1OStVVKxzCXkQNv5mVY0LUcDhDYb13Shimphz
gepdmM7MJgFDYujfULz65WBrv/YCnOblB6NdDnXArP8twraP2raDiDOFY0zRN4O8Ejuk
hXR+7d+Bu8DGD6XSCuhOust1NPdo8q6DIx3XgzHMe3RCVxvhkbui2U2rHNvd7KXO9PT6
2q1q/GHsS1Kj09RQu6MHU84tqVe9oi+5oe+Xbv93L4a37XWL0B0V/h04sr5TU1iG6Ctd
UTnZU0lIKbkc/eF/tsyzzi96BFmCxX7aS6GskMniMzRZlgYcj9bl++01/y5s0/++AgXK
QISQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9Mw/Vkjrch5netY6cENpyf5Y/gW60aNpuET8iD4AOyIzhWAwWmq7BypiD9fOxqtRj+IQl
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.16.33 with SMTP id a33mr16613319qkh.51.1433603136418;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.145.9 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjtovFpLoibpVGLsNJXexBcoiYzjrvctraXntCUZBJsGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPswA9w5Sgg6AV=9Pqx5sqbkdrwv9LmwoxmMu7xZsQSNXtmZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjtovFpLoibpVGLsNJXexBcoiYzjrvctraXntCUZBJsGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 17:05:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPswA9zhB4GV=JJ28RRLFNrkVwExUv36zujmuAjwPd6rG6rvzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT Fill in a short form with personal
information
0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z1FfJ-0005bo-W9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for Proof of Payment
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:05:43 -0000
> What do you gain by making PoPs actually valid transactions? You could fo=
r
> example change the signature hashing algorithm (prepend a constant string=
,
> or add a second hashing step) for signing, rendering the signatures in a =
PoP
> unusable for actual transaction, while still committing to the same actua=
l
> transaction. That would also remove the need for the OP_RETURN to catch
> fees.
The idea is to simplify implementation. Existing software can be used
as is to sign and validate PoPs. But I do agree that it would be a
cleaner specification if we would make the PoP invalid as a
transaction. I'm open to changes here. I do like the idea to prepend a
constant string. But that would require changes in transaction signing
and validation code, wouldn't it?
>
> Also, I would call it "proof of transaction intent", as it's a commitment=
to
> a transaction and proof of its validity, but not a proof that an actual
> transaction took place, nor a means to prevent it from being double spent=
.
>
Naming is hard. I think a simpler name that explains what its main
purpose is (prove that you paid for something) is better than a name
that exactly tries to explain what it is. "Proof of transaction
intent" does not help me understand what this is about. But I would
like to see more name suggestions. The name does not prevent people
from using it for other purposes, ie internet over telephone network.
Thank you
/Kalle
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se> wrot=
e:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Following earlier posts on Proof of Payment I'm now proposing the
>> following BIP (To read it formatted instead, go to
>> https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/Proof-of-Payment-BIP).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kalle Rosenbaum
>>
>> <pre>
>> BIP: <BIP number>
>> Title: Proof of Payment
>> Author: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
>> Status: Draft
>> Type: Standards Track
>> Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
>> </pre>
>>
>> =3D=3D Abstract =3D=3D
>>
>> This BIP describes how a wallet can prove to a server that it has the
>> ability to sign a certain transaction.
>>
>> =3D=3D Motivation =3D=3D
>>
>> There are several scenarios in which it would be useful to prove that yo=
u
>> have paid for something. For example:
>>
>> * A pre-paid hotel room where your PoP functions as a key to the door.
>> * An online video rental service where you pay for a video and watch it =
on
>> any device.
>> * An ad-sign where you pay in advance for e.g. 2 weeks exclusivity. Duri=
ng
>> this period you can upload new content to the sign whenever you like usi=
ng
>> PoP.
>> * Log in to a pay site using a PoP.
>> * A parking lot you pay for monthly and the car authenticates itself usi=
ng
>> PoP.
>> * A lottery where all participants pay to the same address, and the winn=
er
>> is selected among the transactions to that address. You exchange the pri=
ze
>> for a PoP for the winning transaction.
>>
>> With Proof of Payment, these use cases can be achieved without any
>> personal information (user name, password, e-mail address, etc) being
>> involved.
>>
>> =3D=3D Rationale =3D=3D
>>
>> Desirable properties:
>>
>> # A PoP should be generated on demand.
>> # It should only be usable once to avoid issues due to theft.
>> # It should be able to create a PoP for any payment, regardless of scrip=
t
>> type (P2SH, P2PKH, etc.).
>> # It should prove that you have enough credentials to unlock all the
>> inputs of the proven transaction.
>> # It should be easy to implement by wallets and servers to ease adoption=
.
>>
>> Current methods of proving a payment:
>>
>> * In BIP0070, the PaymentRequest together with the transactions fulfilli=
ng
>> the request makes some sort of proof. However, it does not meet 1, 2 or =
4
>> and it obviously only meets 3 if the payment is made through BIP0070. Al=
so,
>> there's no standard way to request/provide the proof. If standardized it
>> would probably meet 5.
>> * Signing messages, chosen by the server, with the private keys used to
>> sign the transaction. This could meet 1 and 2 but probably not 3. This i=
s
>> not standardized either. 4 Could be met if designed so.
>>
>> If the script type is P2SH, any satisfying script should do, just like f=
or
>> a payment. For M-of-N multisig scripts, that would mean that any set of =
M
>> keys should be sufficient, not neccesarily the same set of M keys that
>> signed the transaction. This is important because strictly demanding the
>> same set of M keys would undermine the purpose of a multisig address.
>>
>> =3D=3D Specification =3D=3D
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D Data structure =3D=3D=3D
>>
>> A proof of payment for a transaction T, here called PoP(T), is used to
>> prove that one has ownership of the credentials needed to unlock all the
>> inputs of T. It has the exact same structure as a bitcoin transaction wi=
th
>> the same inputs and outputs as T and in the same order as in T. There is
>> also one OP_RETURN output inserted at index 0, here called the pop outpu=
t.
>> This output must have the following format:
>>
>> OP_RETURN <version> <txid> <nonce>
>>
>> {|
>> ! Field !! Size [B] !! Description
>> |-
>> | <version> || 2 || Version, little endian, currently 0x01 0x0=
0
>> |-
>> | <txid> || 32 || The transaction to prove
>> |-
>> | <nonce> || 6 || Random data
>> |}
>>
>> The value of the pop output is set to the same value as the transaction
>> fee of T. Also, if the outputs of T contains an OP_RETURN output, that
>> output must not be included in the PoP because there can only be one
>> OP_RETURN output in a transaction. The value of that OP_RETURN output is
>> instead added to the value of the pop output.
>>
>> An illustration of the PoP data structure and its original payment is
>> shown below.
>>
>> <pre>
>> T
>> +----------------------------------------------+
>> |inputs | outputs |
>> | Value | Value Script |
>> +----------------------------------------------+
>> |input0 1 | 0 pay to A |
>> |input1 3 | 2 OP_RETURN <some data> |
>> |input2 4 | 1 pay to B |
>> | | 4 pay to C |
>> +----------------------------------------------+
>>
>> PoP(T)
>> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>> |inputs | outputs |
>> | Value | Value Script |
>> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>> |input0 1 | 3 OP_RETURN <version> <txid> <nonce> |
>> |input1 3 | 0 pay to A |
>> |input2 4 | 1 pay to B |
>> | | 4 pay to C |
>> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>> </pre>
>>
>> The PoP is signed using the same signing process that is used for bitcoi=
n
>> transactions.
>>
>> The purpose of the nonce is to make it harder to use a stolen PoP; Once
>> the PoP has reached the server, that PoP is useless since the server wil=
l
>> generate a new nonce for every PoP request.
>>
>> Since a PoP is indistinguishable from a bitcoin transaction, there is a
>> risk that it, accidently or maliciously, enters the bitcoin p2p network.=
If
>> T is still unconfirmed, or if a reorg takes place, chances are that PoP(=
T)
>> ends up in a block, invalidating T. Therefore it is important that the
>> outputs of the PoP are the same as in T. The zero transaction fee in PoP=
(T)
>> is to minimize the incentives for miners to select PoP(T) for inclusion.
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D Process =3D=3D=3D
>>
>> # A proof of payment request is sent from the server to the wallet. The
>> PoP request contains:
>> ## a random nonce
>> ## a destination where to send the PoP, for example a https URL
>> ## data hinting the wallet which transaction to create a proof for. For
>> example:
>> ##* txid, if known by the server
>> ##* PaymentRequest.PaymentDetails.merchant_data (in case of a BIP0070
>> payment)
>> ##* amount, label, message or other information from a BIP0021 URL
>> # The wallet identifies a transaction T, if possible. Otherwise it asks
>> the user to select among the ones that match the hints in 1.iii.
>> # The wallet creates an unsigned PoP (UPoP) for T, and asks the user to
>> sign it.
>> # The user confirms
>> # The UPoP(T) is signed by the wallet, creating PoP(T).
>> # The PoP is sent to the destination in 1.ii.
>> # The server receiving the PoP validates it and responds with =E2=80=9Cv=
alid=E2=80=9D or
>> =E2=80=9Cinvalid=E2=80=9D.
>> # The wallet displays the response in some way to the user.
>>
>> '''Remarks:'''
>>
>> * The method of transferring the PoP request at step 1 is not specified
>> here. Instead that is specified in separate specifications. See [btcpop
>> scheme BIP](btcpop scheme BIP).
>> * The nonce must be randomly generated by the server for every new PoP
>> request.
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D Validating a PoP =3D=3D=3D
>>
>> The server needs to validate the PoP and reply with "valid" or "invalid"=
.
>> That process is outlined below. If any step fails, the validation is abo=
rted
>> and "invalid" is returned:
>>
>> # Check the format of the PoP. It must pass normal transaction checks,
>> except that the inputs may already be spent.
>> # Check the PoP output at index 0. It must conform to the OP_RETURN outp=
ut
>> format outlined above.
>> # Check that the rest of the outputs exactly corresponds to the outputs =
of
>> T and that they appear in the same order as in T. An exception to this i=
s
>> that any OP_RETURN outputs of T must not be included in the PoP. All out=
put
>> value from the OP_RETURN must instead be included in the PoP output.
>> # Check that the nonce is the same as the one you requested.
>> # Check that the inputs of the PoP are exactly the same as in transactio=
n
>> T, and in the same order.
>> # Check the scripts of all the inputs, as would be done on a normal
>> transaction.
>> # Check that the txid in the PoP output is the transaction you actually
>> want proof for. If you don=E2=80=99t know exactly what transaction you w=
ant proof
>> for, check that the transaction actually pays for the product/service yo=
u
>> deliver.
>> # Return "valid".
>>
>> =3D=3D Security considerations =3D=3D
>>
>> * Someone can intercept the PoP-request and change the PoP destination s=
o
>> that the user sends the PoP to the bad actor.
>> * Someone can intercept the PoP-request and change for example the txid =
to
>> trick the user to sign a PoP for another transaction than the intended. =
This
>> can of course be avoided if the user is actually looking at the UPoP bef=
ore
>> signing it. The bad actor could also set hints for a transaction, existi=
ng
>> or not, that the user didn=E2=80=99t make, resulting in a broken service=
.
>> * Someone can steal a PoP and try to use the service hoping to get a
>> matching nonce. Probability per try: 1/(2^48). The server should have a
>> mechanism for detecting a brute force attack of this kind, or at least s=
low
>> down the process by delaying the PoP request by some 100 ms or so.
>> * Even if a wallet has no funds it might still be valuable as a generato=
r
>> for PoPs. This makes it important to keep the security of the wallet aft=
er
>> it has been emptied.
>> * Transaction malleability may cause the server to have another
>> transaction id than the wallet for the payment. In that case the wallet =
will
>> not be able to prove the transaction for the server. Wallets should not =
rely
>> on the transaction id of the outgoing transaction. Instead it should lis=
ten
>> for the transaction on the network and put that in its list of transacti=
ons.
>>
>> The first two issues are the same attack vector as for traditional, ie
>> BIP0021, bitcoin payments. They could be mitigated by using secure
>> connections.
>>
>> =3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D
>>
>> [https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc poppoc on GitHub]
>>
>> [https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/wallet Mycelium fork on GitHub]
>>
>> =3D=3D References =3D=3D
>>
>> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0021.mediawiki BIP0021]=
:
>> URI Scheme
>>
>> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0070.mediawiki BIP0070]=
:
>> Payment Protocol
>>
>> [[btcpop scheme BIP]]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
|