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
|
Return-Path: <crypto@timruffing.de>
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D55C0177
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:38:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBA1883E1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:38:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id nAVDJd2miNaT
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:38:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [80.241.56.171])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDFFC88177
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org
[IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:2:0])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48lhVn4SMpzQlJJ;
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:38:25 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de
Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.241])
by spamfilter04.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter04.heinlein-hosting.de
[80.241.56.122]) (amavisd-new, port 10030)
with ESMTP id gjsPM6r_gVgV; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:38:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <bb7b0773f2a103e168ebe131fc834a045cb83b02.camel@timruffing.de>
From: Tim Ruffing <crypto@timruffing.de>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:38:21 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKkNvdegQFzosD-_DHZuu+qiCS6dKXvW7vDTpuB+T_j7dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <VZTbLR9RlkkyNg6mOOIxedh7H0g8NGlaCmgBfCVXZ4RNfW3axefgoTqZGXjAQZFEuekujVGjRMv8SifDIodZ6tRGaaXQ_R63rFa03SGS6rg=@wuille.net>
<de7bd393327015a5b97ffff0d15a7c90d2d2196a.camel@timruffing.de>
<CAMZUoKk6uFAfZkUQUbDY_Kw=3bc5LUb2ihDUT9Wqh0zrO64Erw@mail.gmail.com>
<c14db3d600c0c60bbf06ea832fc438a5c9fd97da.camel@timruffing.de>
<CAMZUoKkNvdegQFzosD-_DHZuu+qiCS6dKXvW7vDTpuB+T_j7dg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:42:00 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Overview of anti-covert-channel signing techniques
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:38:29 -0000
On Sun, 2020-03-22 at 11:30 -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Your claim is that if we don't fix the pubkey issue there is no point
> in fixing the signature issue. I disagree. While I think both
> issues need to be fully addressed, the issues around the original
> proposed non-deterministic signature scheme are far more severe. The
> proposal would move us from a deterministic scheme, where spot checks
> are possible, with all the caveats that entails, to a non-
> deterministic scheme where spot checks are impossible. My hope is
> that we can standardise a scheme that has the advantages of non-
> determinism without the threat of covert channels.
I think we agree that both issues should be addressed, and this is all
what matters in the end. Now that we have a proposal for Schnorr
signatures, it's indeed a good time to work on these issues.
Tim
|
