Return-Path: <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FEFC002B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  7 Feb 2023 18:10:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EF881A34
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  7 Feb 2023 18:10:15 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 33EF881A34
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mail.wpsoftware.net
 header.i=@mail.wpsoftware.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default
 header.b=Hbk5Vksr
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id RryBvR2qmunK
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  7 Feb 2023 18:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 590F281A33
Received: from mail.wpsoftware.net (unknown [66.183.0.205])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590F281A33
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  7 Feb 2023 18:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from camus (camus-andrew.lan [192.168.0.190])
 by mail.wpsoftware.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CECA140102
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  7 Feb 2023 18:10:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.wpsoftware.net;
 s=default; t=1675793411;
 bh=oDP4grK8IvB+M+mzsJBw3OmUU8hEaoMypd23wOPnczg=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=Hbk5VksrwAkofKzkxS0IbUKPqdDeQ42z9XC4X0+8Zt9ealkAbW2BY3ydOmQN11llo
 4ZeqLUAnQdTRVOQiYFKO+v5NULHxrpR47KUgc3TJw8lBtpAS2sy/st929q833DquAL
 ZG7Y0B0P8PTAk7LxyDNAEiD8OlmIrgtzMypwsq7FXqoFd6zHk6IEXAkRzkpcZaw1a0
 sv63oqkRySVbf1RWcbAzGkUZXk0ku5NmIYDz9CY/SbzwRxXVveCumb31i8ob46XC2K
 7bE//8wRGYHW20ss07GyeEgTPXrICCt7Tz2WTRtt/H+euXY/l9CfibmkwZ9kEf7TOm
 ziQTi9bQqlZlQ==
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 18:10:10 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y+KUAlsPc8ohPecb@camus>
References: <CAAQdECCH=YOcu4g6Ku1_G4CnRg6rsaFPFPwbABx9aZin9A8+2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+JWLsc80gxL4kpG@camus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cTKZENnAzd4H2thu"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y+JWLsc80gxL4kpG@camus>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unenforceable fee obligations in multiparty
 protocols with Taproot inputs
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 18:10:15 -0000


--cTKZENnAzd4H2thu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Some people highlighted some minor problems with my last email:

On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:46:22PM +0000, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev w=
rote:
>=20
> <snip>=20
>=20
> [1] https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/
> [2] In Taproot, if you want to prevent signatures migrating to another
>     branch or within a branch, you can use the CODESEPARATOR opcode
>     which was redisegned in Taproot for exactly this purpose... we
>     really did about witness malleation in its design!

In Taproot the tapleaf hash is always covered by the signature (though
not in some ANYONECANPAY proposals) so you can never migrate signatures
between tapbranches.

I had thought this was the case, but then I re-confused myself by
reading BIP 341 .... which has much of the sighash specified, but not
all of it! The tapleaf hash is added in BIP 342.

>=20
>     If you want to prevent signatures from moving around *within* a
>     branch,
>

And this sentence I just meant to delete :)


--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster


--cTKZENnAzd4H2thu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmPilAEACgkQxYjWPOQb
l8HfjAf/VFP1t8URr1JpNo6IZqNyoHqXGP4FzvpqU/cHvLBTd3lJjZNSGPCqS5tZ
+GWMCI0FhzGezCDQ2Og/wktdXYvpGTLZhq7TLtnZ/7vIVqscjMYgkXVghBod53ub
uHBJjTeWN6wb/CYN0FkODLPcb1f5fjshDOOsY+U4dpYWZfyHRbfGl/ILkLXYyoB/
M1xyOobjB7g4Rupnn1pUjfKctBfMkrwrYxH0dwXzHC3E+9Q/e+vJJS1ekUK+djE6
i7iu4Or38BeJjp600TukZKxeP18Z5ZiFvKVeflQRkFHD5jbLY2pj/PcNjDmW5yQI
XFMpczM1pEDnvPEeDDgJZBzknY5/AA==
=8F1t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cTKZENnAzd4H2thu--