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
|
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 74997EC0;
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:23:08 +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-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.136])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC38584F;
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:23:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:22:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1552540985;
bh=/y2gRQqBzHFrDT3+XDyGzBz+rT5OqIGNydilaPclOOw=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=Eb0SOTffmNoUCKrtbUWfh9s6HZ2fvoWLLlnU3TIfWChjb2eJ2fQe6aj5iy4HV22Kc
pXJaBQnR/80z97ZjGOExUTC7Q+L3VBWZDmaHeChdxuwqL+B35WTs2Dgt9KCoObqMYi
5HRg/ER5KYlfo8ak5foelY4W2p3SK3lTHSJuHaLY=
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Au1N1itlfJk5MRV-KoKfmL9BgOGBW1Pdq9vRr-PBVVJfpRngTmpuTmbF5wCAkBSsUvMt3maA3e-VVr-WDDdwh2-XVeCOLjxVsOxABm7cfpU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190313111050.qj3s6utpl2x34sam@erisian.com.au>
References: <20190313014143.ifffshwdux2jt7w5@erisian.com.au>
<gs0Aizmvb8U11-Uz4RUqrEwgu00deU3JRhwHWbPjn8g1lZV3iaydqoYP3tldfrflHRC2HHJEZtAOVeYdaOW-chMcRdPVSiNYmqT6jSPnL1c=@protonmail.com>
<20190313111050.qj3s6utpl2x34sam@erisian.com.au>
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:29:32 +0000
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
"lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] More thoughts on NOINPUT safety
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:23:08 -0000
Good morning aj,
When reading through your original post I saw you mentioned something about=
output tagging somehow conflicting with Taproot, so I assumed Taproot is n=
ot useable in this case.
However, it is probably more likely that I simply misunderstood what you sa=
id, so if you can definitively say that it would be possible to hide the cl=
ause "or a NOINPUT sig from A with a non-NOINPUT sig from B" behind a Tapro=
ot then I am fine.
Minor pointless reactions:
> 5. if you're using scriptless scripts to do HTLCs, you'll need to
> allow for NOINPUT sigs when claiming funds as well (and update
> the partial signatures for the non-NOINPUT cases if you want to
> maximise privacy), which is a bit fiddly
If I remember accurately, we do not allow bilateral/cooperative close when =
HTLC is in-flight.
However, I notice that later you point out that a non-cheating unilateral c=
lose does not need NOINPUT, so I suppose. the above thought applies to that=
case.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
