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
|
Return-Path: <peter@coinkite.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7950C5C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:27:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from smtp105.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp105.ord1c.emailsrvr.com
[108.166.43.105])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55BAE722
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:27:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp22.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp22.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id
A4BE0E016F; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: peter@coinkite.com
Received: by smtp22.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender:
peter-AT-coinkite.com) with ESMTPSA id C3752E0154;
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: peter@coinkite.com
Received: from coinkite.com ([UNAVAILABLE]. [216.223.137.93])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384)
by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.7.12); Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:27:18 -0400
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:27:15 -0400
From: "Peter D. Gray" <peter@coinkite.com>
To: Achow101 <achow101-lists@achow101.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20180623182715.GC893@coinkite.com>
Reply-To: Peter Gray <peter@coinkite.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhGMxXatsyCAqeboQKH8ASSFAfiXzxyXR9UrNFnah5PPw@mail.gmail.com>
<CHCiA27GTRiVfkF1DoHdroJL1rQS77ocB42nWxIIhqi_fY3VbB3jsMQveRJOtsJiA4RaCAVe3VZmLZsXVYS3A5wVLNP2OgKQiHE0T27P2qc=@achow101.com>
<21a616f5-7a17-35b9-85ea-f779f20a6a2d@satoshilabs.com>
<20180621195654.GC99379@coinkite.com>
<CAPg+sBgdQqZ8sRSn=dd9EkavYJA6GBiCu6-v5k9ca-9WLPp72Q@mail.gmail.com>
<ljk5Z_a3KK6DHfmPJxI8o9W2CkwszkUG34h0i1MTGU4ss8r3BTQ3GnTtDTfWF6J7ZqcSAmejzrr11muWqYN-_wnWw_0NFn5_lggNnjI0_Rc=@achow101.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ljk5Z_a3KK6DHfmPJxI8o9W2CkwszkUG34h0i1MTGU4ss8r3BTQ3GnTtDTfWF6J7ZqcSAmejzrr11muWqYN-_wnWw_0NFn5_lggNnjI0_Rc=@achow101.com>
Organization: Coinkite Cryptobank (www.coinkite.com)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
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: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:19:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts
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: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:27:19 -0000
--UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:28:33PM -0400, Achow101 wrote:
> After reading the comments here about BIP 174, I would like to propose th=
e following changes:
>=20
> - Moving redeemScripts, witnessScripts, and BIP 32 derivation paths to pe=
r-input and per-output data
=2E..
I like this. I agree it's making things easier and it's more flexible.
> - Finalized scriptSig and scriptWitness fields
>=20
> To determine whether two PSBTs are the same, we can compare the unsigned =
transaction. To ensure that the
> unsigned transactions are the same for two PSBTs with data for the same t=
x, we cannot put scriptSigs or
> scriptWitnesses into it. Thus for each input, two new fields have been ad=
ded to store the finalized scriptSig
> and finalized scriptWitness.
=2E..
To be honest, I don't understand the reasons/implications of this change, b=
ut it seems harmless.
> - Mandatory sighash
=2E..
Good improvement.
> - Encoding
>=20
> I have decided that PSBTs should either be in binary or encoded as a Base=
64 string. For the latter, several
> Bitcoin clients already support Base64 encoding of data (for signed messa=
ges) so this will not add any extra
> dependencies like Z85 would.
=2E..
Personally, I don't think you should spec an encoding. It should be binary =
only and hex for developers and JSON interfaces. My thinking is that PSBT's=
are not user-visible things. They have a short lifetime and are nothing so=
mething that is "stored" or referenced much later. Hex is good enough and h=
as no downsides as an excoding except for density.
On the other hand, suggesting a filename extension (probably .PSBT?) and a =
mime-type to match, are helpful since wallets and such will want to registe=
r with their operating systems to become handlers of those mimetypes. Reall=
y that's a lot more important for interoperability at this point, than an e=
ncoding.
> A draft of the revised BIP can be found here: https://github.com/achow101=
/bips/blob/bip174-rev/bip-0174.mediawiki
> If these changes are satisfactory, I will open a PR to the BIPs repo to u=
pdate the BIP tomorrow. I will also
> create test vectors and update the implementation PR'ed to Core.
=2E..
Looking forward to test vectors, and I might have more to say once my code =
can handle them (again).
Feedback on the BIP as it stands now:=20
- Appendix A needs an update, and I suggest defining symbols (PK_PARTIAL_SI=
G =3D=3D 0x02) for the numeric key values. This helps implementers as we do=
n't all define our own symbols and/or use numeric constants in our code.
- Those tables are just not working. Might want to reformat as descriptive =
lists, point form, or generally anything else... sorry.
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
---
Peter D. Gray || Founder, Coinkite || Twitter: @dochex || GPG: A3A31B=
AD 5A2A5B10
--UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJbLpEDAAoJEKOjG61aKlsQpH0H/A8HAYThrP91Jz0Rfk11Rh8I
P/OH22ld+SBlu6ggsMOoQaBGNSVj9XxtMXhLUAbjtwmEPjxfpUPLdq/H07recIJ/
KDEyujj+8T0q1UjuVeixBAifq21QkgHyjHZUXXcuC7f1doELrqba5Mqi4/IBjRfa
9c//fzY8JI5CPs2VkgvNTjTH0j2953DDZ66nKo6cS7uTCp4KmCRCd0ud/NYdKecu
DrUcru7nI1yLdSBpNjjx44LQF7pexl89oCtmIZE6vra+bPFubjlrQU/UOpjuruJB
FWmbt1El+Sf4lOxCK4B/En0FfMFbiU6e6TrS5+Dw58W7/5JfJPac5Z+a/O4Vy4o=
=JJkP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2--
|
