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
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
|
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 3D828120F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:31:56 +0000 (UTC)
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 4B21D8B1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:31:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:31:49 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1569936710;
bh=oxcnbxOkYoQRQcplJGG2RDuszfI6gggojYewyBM//WA=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=pEZ6VxCdr7on/G+Uu7qSlHRIsPreOvDrwSnRumI3EzSyFp+0ioHdO1CHWTJGZ1k9b
cJ9tudrmfq+DO1yqH8ddVoKrsxzrjGgpqFQyzcu4AiWZF9J4OpEmDj6L7s3zttI1aX
g0A9olbGuBnKUU43En03PUDg/hsU1Vqec4vpuFa8=
To: Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <bMt69zMSAH_2zekGjg56k6MWFMwWkjKMdUjqHQ5eN7c5ONixWZ0s2wW4HmILeVjImt6Z2K5fPa6GKGLP_HWThCzFIIu53wvEKTDrGg-YpOQ=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFQwNuxdfMNBGyM5Y4nMb46GNigxFTFCv3X09jZd4fjNPckw4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87wodp7w9f.fsf@gmail.com>
<CAFQwNuxdfMNBGyM5Y4nMb46GNigxFTFCv3X09jZd4fjNPckw4Q@mail.gmail.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, DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_B, 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: Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
"lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-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: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:31:56 -0000
Good morning lists,
Let me summarize concerns brought up:
* Chris concern, is that an ordinary UTXO that is not allocated for `SIGHAS=
H_NOINPUT` use, is inadvertently spent using `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`.
* My concern, is that unless a UTXO allocated for `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` use, is=
*indeed* used with SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, it should look exactly the same as an=
y other SegWit v1 output.
I propose the below instead:
* Do ***NOT*** allocate SegWit v16 for `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`.
* Instead, allocate SegWit v1 Tapscript v16 for `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`.
Then, on usage:
* Exchange hoards can be protected by simple MuSig bip-schnorr SegWit v1 ou=
tputs, or a NUMS Taproot internal point with a MAST branch Tapscript v0 `OP=
_CHECKSIG_ADD` sequence.
* Decker-Russell-Osuntokun constructions are backed by a n-of-n MuSig Tapro=
ot internal point, with a MAST branch containing a Tapscript v16 with `OP_1=
OP_CHECKSIG`.
This solves both concerns:
* Ordinary UTXOs not allocated for `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` use simply do not comm=
it to any Taproot that has a Tapscript v16 branch, and thus `SIGHASH_NOINPU=
T` is unuseable to claim it.
* If a UTXO used for an offchain protocol ends up in a cooperative-resoluti=
on state, nobody has to know that a Tapscript v16 branch existed that could=
have used `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`.
Again, my objection to output tagging is that it is **publicly visible** as=
soon as the funding transaction is confirmed onchain that this is a specia=
l output used for a Decker-Russell-Osuntokun construction, greatly damaging=
privacy.
But if this fact is kept secret *unless* the very specific case of unilater=
al uncooperative enforcement, then it is quite fine with me.
Would this alternate proposal hold better muster?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
> I do have some concerns about SIGHASH_NOINPUT, mainly that it does introd=
uce another footgun into the bitcoin protocol with address reuse. It's comm=
on practice for bitcoin businesses to re-use addresses. Many exchanges [1] =
reuse addresses for cold storage with very large sums of money that is stor=
ed in these addreses.
>
> It is my understanding with this part of BIP118
>
> >Using NOINPUT the input containing the signature no longer references a =
specific output. Any participant can take a transaction and rewrite it by c=
hanging the hash reference to the previous output, without invalidating the=
signatures. This allows transactions to be bound to any output that matche=
s the value committed to in the witness and whose witnessProgram, combined =
with the spending transaction's witness returns true.
>
> if an exchange were to once produce a digital signature from that cold st=
orage address with a SIGHASH_NOINPUT signature, that signature can be repla=
yed again and again on the blockchain until their wallet is drained. This m=
ight be able to mitigated since the signatures commit to outputs, which may=
be small in value for the transaction that SIGHASH_NOINPUT was used. This =
means that an exchange could move coins from the address with a larger tran=
saction that spends money to a new output (and presumably pays a higher fee=
than the smaller transactions).
>
> ### Why does this matter?
>
> It seems that SIGHASH_NOINPUT will be an extremely useful tool for offcha=
in protocols like Lightning. This gives us the building blocks for enforcin=
g specific offchain states to end up onchain [2].
>
> Since this tool is useful, we can presume that it will be integrated into=
the signing path of large economic entities in bitcoin -- namely exchanges=
. Many exchanges have specific signing procedures for transactions that are=
leaving an exchange that is custom software. Now -- presuming wide adoptio=
n of off chain protocols -- they will need to have a _second unique signing=
path that uses SIGHASH_NOINPUT_.
>
> It is imperative that this second signing path -- which uses SIGHASH_NOIN=
PUT -- does NOT get mixed up with the first signing path that controls an e=
xchanges onchain funds. If this were to happen, fund lost could occur if th=
e exchange is reusing address, which seems to be common practice.
>
> This is stated here in BIP118:
>
> >This also means that particular care has to be taken in order to avoid u=
nintentionally enabling this rebinding mechanism. NOINPUT MUST NOT be used,=
unless it is explicitly needed for the application, e.g., it MUST NOT be a=
default signing flag in a wallet implementation. Rebinding is only possibl=
e when the outputs the transaction may bind to all use the same public keys=
. Any public key that is used in a NOINPUT signature MUST only be used for =
outputs that the input may bind to, and they MUST NOT be used for transacti=
ons that the input may not bind to. For example an application SHOULD gener=
ate a new key-pair for the application instance using NOINPUT signatures an=
d MUST NOT reuse them afterwards.
>
> This means we need to encourage onchain hot wallet signing procedures to =
be kept separate from offchain hot wallet signing procedures, which introdu=
ces more complexity for key management (two keychains).
>
> One (of the few) upsides of the current Lightning penalty mechanism is th=
at fund loss can be contained to balance of the channel. You cannot do some=
thing in the current protocol that will effect your funds outside of that c=
hannel. With SIGHASH_NOINPUT, that property changes.
>
> ### A side note
> In general, i think we should start disallowing uses of the SIGHASH proto=
cols that have unexpected behavior. The classic example of this is SIGHASH_=
SINGLE [3]. I get uneasy about adding more footguns to the protocol, which =
with current network behavior (address re-use) SIGHASH_NOINPUT would be a b=
ig one.
>
> [1] - https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
> [2] - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-Sept=
ember/002136.html
> [3] - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-May/01=
6048.html
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > With the recently renewed interest in eltoo, a proof-of-concept impleme=
ntation
> > [1], and the discussions regarding clean abstractions for off-chain pro=
tocols
> > [2,3], I thought it might be time to revisit the `sighash_noinput` prop=
osal
> > (BIP-118 [4]), and AJ's `bip-anyprevout` proposal [5].
> >
> > (sorry for the long e-mail. I wanted to give enough context and describ=
e the
> > various tradeoffs so people don't have to stitch them together from mem=
ory. If
> > you're impatient there are a couple of open questions at the bottom)
> >
> > Both proposals are ways to allow rebinding of transactions to new outpu=
ts, by
> > adding a sighash flag that excludes the output when signing. This allow=
s the
> > transaction to be bound to any output, without needing a new signature,=
as
> > long as output script and input script are compatible, e.g., the signat=
ure
> > matches the public key specified in the output.
> >
> > BIP-118 is limited to explaining the details of signature verification,=
and
> > omits anything related to deployment and dependency on other proposals.=
This
> > was done in order not to depend on bip-taproot which is also in draft-p=
hase
> > currently, and to allow deployment alongside the next version of segwit
> > script. `bip-anyprevout` builds on top of BIP-118, adding integration w=
ith
> > `bip-taproot`, chaperone signatures, limits the use of the sighash flag=
to
> > script path spends, as well as a new pubkey serialization which uses th=
e first
> > byte to signal opt-in.
> >
> > I'd like to stress that both proposals are complementary and not compet=
ing,
> > which is something that I've heard a couple of times.
> >
> > There remain a couple of unclear points which I hope we can address in =
the
> > coming days, to get this thing moving again, and hopefully get a new to=
ol in
> > our toolbox soon(ish).
> >
> > In the following I will quote a couple of things that were discussed du=
ring
> > the CoreDev meeting earlier this year, but not everybody could join, an=
d it is
> > important that we engage the wider community, to get a better picture, =
and I
> > think not everybody is up-to-date about the current state.
> >
> > ## Dangers of `sighash_noinput`
> >
> > An argument I have heard against noinput is that it is slightly less co=
mplex
> > or compute intensive than `sighash_all` signatures, which may encourage=
wallet
> > creators to only implement the noinput variant, and use it indiscrimi-
> > nately. This is certainly a good argument, and indeed we have seen at l=
east
> > one developer proposing to use noinput for all transactions to discoura=
ge
> > address reuse.
> >
> > This was also mentioned at CoreDev [6]:
> >
> > > When [...] said he wanted to write a wallet that only used SIGHASH\_N=
OINPUT,
> > > that was pause for concern. Some people might want to use SIGHASH\_NO=
INPUT as a
> > > way to cheapen or reduce the complexity of making a wallet
> > > implementation. SIGHASH\_NOINPUT is from a purely procedural point of=
view
> > > easier than doing a SIGHASH\_ALL, that's all I'm saying. So you're ha=
shing
> > > less. It's way faster. That concern has been brought to my attention =
and it's
> > > something I can see. Do we want to avoid people being stupid and shoo=
ting
> > > themselves and their customers in the foot? Or do we treat this as a =
special
> > > case where you mark we're aware of how it should be used and we just =
try to
> > > get that awareness out?
> >
> > Another issue that is sometimes brought up is that an external user may
> > attempt to send funds to a script that was really part of a higher-leve=
l
> > protocol. This leads to those funds becoming inaccessible unless you ga=
ther
> > all the participants and sign off on those funds. I don't believe this =
is
> > anything new, and if users really want to shoot themselves in the foot =
and
> > send funds to random addresses they fish out of a blockexplorer there's=
little
> > we can do. What we could do is make the scripts used internally in our
> > protocols unaddressable (see output tagging below), removing this issue
> > altogether.
> >
> > ## Chaperone signatures
> >
> > Chaperone signatures are signatures that ensure that there is no third-=
party
> > malleability of transactions. The idea is to have an additional signatu=
re,
> > that doesn't use noinput, or any of its variants, and therefore needs t=
o be
> > authored by one of the pubkeys in the output script, i.e., one or more =
of the
> > participants of the contract the transaction belongs to. Concretely in =
eltoo
> > we'd be using a shared key known to all participants in the eltoo insta=
nce, so
> > any participant can sign an update to rebind it to the desired output.
> >
> > Chaperone signatures have a number of downsides however:
> >
> > - Additional size: both the public key and the signature actually nee=
d to be
> > stored along with the real noinput signature, resulting in transfer=
,
> > computational and storage overhead. We can't reuse the same pubkey =
from the
> > noinput signature since that'd require access to the matching privk=
ey which
> > is what we want to get rid of using noinput in the first place.
> > - Protocols can still simply use a globally known privkey, voiding th=
e
> > benefit of chaperone signatures, since third-parties can sign again=
. I
> > argue that third-party malleability is a subset of first-party
> > malleability, and we should protect against first-party malleabilit=
y first
> > and foremost. My counterparty has the incentive to trick me, a thir=
d-party
> > may not.
> >
> > On the plus side chaperone signatures certainly address the lazy-wallet=
-dev
> > scenario, and as AJ points out in [bip-anyprevout] we get back the same
> > security guarantees as we had without noinput.
> >
> > From what I remember and the transcript (thanks Kanzure for your awesom=
e work
> > by the way), there was no strong support for chaperone signatures durin=
g the
> > meeting [6], but feedback from people that were not present is needed:
> >
> > > if everyone who wanted to use NOINPUT was convinced there was a probl=
em, then
> > > they would pick the right thing, but clearly people aren't. It's not =
a
> > > foot-gun defense mechanism because it's easily bypassed, and it's eas=
ier to
> > > bypass it than to use it. Whereas for tagged outputs, it's that if yo=
u want
> > > any NOINPUT then you must tag.
> >
> > ## Output tagging
> >
> > One proposal that I found rather fascinating during the discussion in
> > Amsterdam was that we could achieve the same disincentive to use on
> > non-smart-contract cases by simply making the output scripts
> > unaddressable. This can be done by specifying a version of taproot outp=
uts for
> > which the bech32 addressing scheme simply doesn't have a representation=
[6]:
> >
> > > The tagged outputs idea is that we don't have NOINPUT ANYPREVOUT supp=
orted for
> > > taproot v1 outputs, instead we have a segwit version 16 v16 that supp=
orts
> > > taproot. The reason for v16 is that we redefine bech32 to not cover
> > > v16. There's no addresses for this type of output. If you're an excha=
nge and
> > > receive a bech32 address, you declare it invalid. You make it less us=
er
> > > friendly here; and there shouldn't be an address anyway. You might wa=
nt to see
> > > it on a block explorer, but you don't want to pass it around to anyon=
e.
> >
> > We don't need addresses in our contract constructions because we deal d=
irectly
> > with the scripts. This would also have the desired effect of no allowin=
g
> > generic wallets to send to these addresses, or users accidentally sendi=
ng
> > funds to what was supposed to be a one-off script used internally in th=
e
> > off-chain contract.
> >
> > Notice that this idea was already used by Russell O'Connor when perform=
ing a
> > transaction on elements using his new scripting language simplicity
> > [7]:
> >
> > > For this experimental development, we created an improper segwit vers=
ion,
> > > "version 31" for Simplicity addresses. The payload of this segwit ver=
sion 31
> > > address contains a commitment Merkle root of a Simplicity program to =
control
> > > the UTXO.
> >
> > The concern with output tagging is that it hurts fungibility, marking o=
utputs
> > used in a contract as such and making them identifiable. But maybe it w=
ould be
> > a good idea to create two domains anyway: one for user-addressable
> > destinations which users can use with their general purpose wallets, an=
d one
> > domain for contracts, which users cannot send to directly.
> >
> > This also came up during the CoreDev meeting [ams-coredev]:
> >
> > > these sort of NOINPUT signatures are only things that are within some
> > > application or within some protocol that gets negotiated between part=
icipants,
> > > but they don't cross-independent domains where you see a wallet or a =
protocol
> > > as a kind of domain. You can't tell the difference, is this an addres=
s I can
> > > give to someone else or not? It's all scripts, no real addresses. The=
re are
> > > types of outputs that are completely insecure unconditionally; there =
are
> > > things that are protected and I can give to anyone, you don't want to=
reuse
> > > it, but there's no security issue from doing so. This is an additiona=
l class
> > > that is secure perfectly but only when used in the right way.
> >
> > ## Open questions
> >
> > The questions that remain to be addressed are the following:
> >
> > 1. General agreement on the usefulness of noinput / anyprevoutanyscrip=
t /
> > anyprevout. While at the CoreDev meeting I think everybody agreed t=
hat
> > these proposals a useful, also beyond eltoo, not everybody could be
> > there. I'd therefore like to elicit some feedback from the wider co=
mmunity.
> > 2. Is there strong support or opposition to the chaperone signatures
> > introduced in anyprevout / anyprevoutanyscript? I think it'd be bes=
t to
> > formulate a concrete set of pros and contras, rather than talk abou=
t
> > abstract dangers or advantages.
> > 3. The same for output tagging / explicit opt-in. What are the advanta=
ges and
> > disadvantages?
> > 4. Shall we merge BIP-118 and bip-anyprevout. This would likely reduce=
the
> > confusion and make for simpler discussions in the end.
> > 5. Anything I forgot to mention :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Christian
> >
> > [1] <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-Sep=
tember/002131.html>
> > [2] <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-Septe=
mber/017285.html>
> > [3] <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-Aug=
ust/001383.html>
> > [4] <https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki>
> > [5] <https://github.com/ajtowns/bips/blob/bip-anyprevout/bip-anyprevout=
.mediawiki>
> > [6] <http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-06=
-noinput-etc/>
> > [7] <https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/simplicity/2019/000018.html>
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|