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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 541BEF85
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:01:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E52FE708
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:01:06 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1544644857; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc;
b=CSe1ntS/nAu3NmJX9SZ3teZTpqvuV8/FwcvMdE+7RRSlTxpflQu8jZkTo4Cq1HGFsnmb1hZ8U3Xtt756lTDJUMroO6tczzrN3pRxuSn/5JweyR5n9Y3TttE88rFlyF41WirovZxUXb5mIxL2ju9aKv9jOCokThEFaattw+oIZKo=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com;
s=zohoarc; t=1544644857;
h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results;
bh=VHbEZFqRN+SPjYNOq7iUTpoZoUe77AfBKrc4MY07QWE=;
b=SM0IbkOLEWXoImKa3K5GekJvoR/cUrhRujhdMY0Gc4VNqE2ISVWkgnjkdpML/lWq4ZbieWYBWwUkJSv9oqKqMfShWB6NWhiLKZJYjPBqzNhxLZ5we6+uhZJRrPaJRsfW52gxtmUbJGk2j0j1DQKNdhK3JQR2pIKCpFF/BMt7hZk=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; dkim=pass header.i=xbt.hk;
spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jl2012@xbt.hk;
dmarc=pass header.from=<jl2012@xbt.hk> header.from=<jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from [10.8.0.105] (n218103234118.netvigator.com [218.103.234.118])
by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1544644854417547.3091275917728;
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <87ftv3xerx.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 04:00:50 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DAAB7568-A004-4897-B5B3-0FBBC6895246@xbt.hk>
References: <CAPg+sBhuPG-2GXc+Bp0yv5ywry2fk56LPLT4AY0Kcs+YEoz4FA@mail.gmail.com>
<87ftv3xerx.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
X-ZohoMailClient: External
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:09:29 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:01:07 -0000
> On 12 Dec 2018, at 5:42 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> =
writes:
>> Here is a combined proposal:
>> * Three new sighash flags are added: SIGHASH_NOINPUT, SIGHASH_NOFEE,
>> and SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK.
>> * A new opcode OP_MASK is added, which acts as a NOP during =
execution.
>> * The sighash is computed like in BIP143, but:
>> * If SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK is present, for every OP_MASK in scriptCode
>> the subsequent opcode/push is removed.
>=20
> I'm asking on-list because I'm sure I'm not the only confused one.
>=20
> Having the SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK flag is redundant AFAICT: why not always
> perform mask-removal for signing?
Because a hardware wallet may want to know what exact script it is =
signing?
Masked script has reduced security, but this is a tradeoff with =
functionality (e.g. eltoo can=E2=80=99t work without masking part of the =
script). So when you don=E2=80=99t need that extra functionality, you go =
back to better security
However, I=E2=80=99m not sure if there is any useful NOINPUT case with =
unmasked script.
>=20
> If you're signing arbitrary scripts, you're surely in trouble already?
>=20
> And I am struggling to understand the role of scriptmask in a taproot
> world, where the alternate script is both hidden and general?
It makes sure that your signature is applicable to a specific script =
branch, not others (assuming you use the same pubkey in many branches, =
which is avoidable)
>=20
> I look forward to learning what I missed!
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
