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
|
Return-Path: <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA87AD9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (mo.garage.hdemail.jp [46.51.242.127])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CD73224
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ip-10-217-1-36.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal
(localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with SMTP id 2AA4014C0D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 (JST)
(envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp)
X-Received: from unknown (HELO mo.garage.hdemail.jp) (127.0.0.1)
by 0 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900
X-Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-ma-postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF734C072
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 (JST)
(envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp)
Received: from gw23.oz.hdemail.jp
(ip-10-216-196-34.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal [10.216.196.34])
by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with ESMTP id 1A05014C0D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 (JST)
(envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp)
X-Received: from mail-qt0-f200.google.com (lb07.oz.hdemail.jp [54.238.57.67])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by gw23.oz.hdemail.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21FE148C11D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:28 +0900 (JST)
X-Received: by mail-qt0-f200.google.com with SMTP id x20so5616128qtm.15
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=SgzdPX1dd494cbzm15FIgahnmSHzQ8mxkcnVbu0auRM=;
b=TRC13ggjy4tCUu7g1JLr3vdwKyM30fjiFatkkf4Z5Vg28gHIQlwOgaNGesSUdOIze6
t/ALpFP7vYO8N5S1IZMdhZ/PRGocHg6z4MCpZ8eV/ua8KYD5pip0ZSohsucr+RTQHVzB
nlaYwTntLuiHEyFInzOevLXeDTTvqZcbAoUpoBbxLAob4Yv/fFsWTNocmmVBKFzAgnKB
ms95uftZHebNA3mjMSrSovJ5mGsN0RFxPuLf1F02HKAHii30xxOFS9egqcD3uW7h3Jfb
AgLoonr8CpA4XBM1uQUKZNAKYbSpvNqihAFdcIs1B46DKQBiHHNj70sgVpZY7zBeEqFx
cucw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FwkSY80ZNiongMU2adZdUf20Y/dhheiS+t9MhYI6yZGS0MZLRg
YrNo0nFEJQ0gEMTTDkF1CEcGonpWYoJJc+88lKdrbHI0gXzWN7kzz7YOZUg/8lRftkpKPmc4DID
rARklUYMvHupSO4sGp2jQAP/tfsRfLPzDZ8tipv7I0cjzH4WMGGXnRaNoFWg7RVdPF7fGrjKoZr
4bOnnJcHf5uCkGckeUjZLz6hHZdcWT1lq2b98kSulGTOphMdNdJD2TFPuAmnjgowWX4JpndbYdq
PA7A+DWbMRVeYwoM/QXPnRf62o7PbD/UZ5xUhuyahTpzj4dF1gdhCgj3abpqdZGfq5z7puvs+ni
5SjXmH9PEuwUCbH1tt8S1l5WPTs=
X-Received: by 10.200.6.6 with SMTP id d6mr12003431qth.112.1521160707221;
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELssIVWA/l7e4QFkhEfMQ276EkdU6nte4mUKpriWrKV1IQqRAHBlEiF5sSbdFqTLfBBotJ5JGJr6NOQDDKi0JIA=
X-Received: by 10.200.6.6 with SMTP id d6mr12003413qth.112.1521160706907; Thu,
15 Mar 2018 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.12.176.3 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201803151414.06301.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CALJw2w5=g-FL+MZ08DEoLxVzOKbSXeKu50drE1b4P0JZJpdTyA@mail.gmail.com>
<201803141236.48869.luke@dashjr.org>
<CALJw2w5NQ=WX1Cm4aUXMN=uxn8NLHAfYDLEtqUptce5DCWZXWA@mail.gmail.com>
<201803151414.06301.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Karl Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CALJw2w49bsBNFBj3MvdzNL+Hu3zuq-dmrTv_6wgmO_ZaCXt1nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] {sign|verify}message replacement
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: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:31 -0000
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as
> be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are
> available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession
> of funds, only that you receive funds.
By saying "not necessarily specific UTXOs", are you saying it may be
spent outputs? I'm a little confused I think.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this general signing-a-script context, I think a verifier might want to
> see the time conditions under which it may be spent. The proof container
> could include an optional nLockTime which defaults to 0 and nSequence which
> defaults to 0xFFFF...
Good point!
>> I think it would just use the default (SIGHASH_ALL?) for simplicity.
>> Is there a good reason to tweak it?
>
> I took another look and there should definitely be a byte appended to the
> end of the sig so that the encoding checks pass, but I think it might as
> well be a 0x00 byte since it's not actually a sighash flag.
I think the sighash flag affects the outcome of the actual
verification, but I could be mistaken.
-Kalle.
|
