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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D59B5EE4;
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:28:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.133])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1740D8A8;
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:28:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:28:43 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1569886132;
bh=pB1AFURZ0ImvEnI+0/WeVI0Q5z6cA+dhKaWdlF34Tek=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=NAEupCgxiGVcwGil2vqvFeIfLO7qyypE5/PQ3970O/97Cm7lHQIOI8nb1ryetPmlz
4TCzfy7XSGhWfTBpyywP1OZFI+xGLoYGspaIajV8yz9eTFf+UBpD6Y5KSLZwGyfaFv
wH8zLIgBq8Uqtbw8CZXI50xFboqgzqonpkRTPz10=
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <gPtVJarazpIb7PaNu3ngXLKG2U4cIBfT9lb-04tltIrxufUUP4hMr08vU8Af19My-b5UeVwwo3BYhkDrVwEu1EjS_MMW5aXOx1sVub8MCIE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <-5H29F71ID9UFqUGMaegQxPjKZSrF1mvdgfaaYtt_lwI7l1OTmN_8OgcooyoMt2_XuyZ5aDljL6gEup9C7skF8iuP_NbMW_81h0tJIGbJno=@protonmail.com>
References: <87wodp7w9f.fsf@gmail.com>
<-5H29F71ID9UFqUGMaegQxPjKZSrF1mvdgfaaYtt_lwI7l1OTmN_8OgcooyoMt2_XuyZ5aDljL6gEup9C7skF8iuP_NbMW_81h0tJIGbJno=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
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
Cc: "lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Continuing the discussion about noinput /
anyprevout
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:28:55 -0000
Good morning list,
To elucidate further ---
Suppose rather than `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, we created a new opcode, `OP_CHECKSI=
G_WITHOUT_INPUT`.
This new opcode ignores any `SIGHASH` flags, if present, on a signature, bu=
t instead hashes the current transaction without the input references, then=
checks that hash to the signature.
This is equivalent to `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`.
Yet as an opcode, it would be possible to embed in a Taproot script.
For example, a Decker-Russell-Osuntokun would have an internal Taproot poin=
t be a 2-of-2, then have a script `OP_1 OP_CHECKSIG_WITHOUT_INPUT`.
Unilateral closes would expose the hidden script, but cooperative closes wo=
uld use the 2-of-2 directly.
Of note, is that any special SCRIPT would already be supportable by Taproot=
.
This includes SCRIPTs that may potentially lose funds for the user.
Yet such SCRIPTs are already targetable by a Taproot address.
If we are so concerned about `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` abuse, why are we not so con=
cerned about Taproot abuse?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
