Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30076C0037 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:45:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED443405FA for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:45:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org ED443405FA Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=g+iWfOxv X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J5w46NtZEQac for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D87B41605 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:45:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9D87B41605 Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-35fb42a07f1so3502315ab.0 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 08:45:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1702917951; x=1703522751; darn=lists.linuxfoundation.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LirR+x3BrXdgClWlLDe3kFihkXjuyuH4CT39sSh+nOo=; b=g+iWfOxvUfDybKNtWWw07qgjVnV01O8p8tDdT/Zaj3e8PX5mPPSMgU+bhqkZBJ09jS 5vkOQGmbT1GvV28ehNo8Hj+ee1LJPDVGMOxupJ91b/y+PXb6FcZxPnFCpHEoTgqYNZfC J8QDgqlrZwwo9c0awzdJgvrcw+hv1zTfINANGkAmYFQ0/8u5MtRnB/E30jShbBmWlehL rwxURQ2bRmmO6YFcZmn4nHIgHzAyg5NHd5QVZTdGiYvxl5jURktmKNLfnoIMyTG1vLtP TeWpMsYzXaDd1Y9xGI/H1e4Ql4RCTZlXvW7njdjgoSLs7wTLx37LfHJ253Is6wD0+qC7 EPIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702917951; x=1703522751; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LirR+x3BrXdgClWlLDe3kFihkXjuyuH4CT39sSh+nOo=; b=LwWyNbCAzLZ7tbgNpqlIpb+qUX9avKMZBAHkcFw3DxItOGYXwGdMGeaeUMl6IHbMBl nQZTV7acPUKPNXUYKg+2i6dTSUrJuWT78uteE70mo/kq/9/BERJR/V+wSWbFAGbASBTH kCT5MLh2IQWhIq3LzEU5MTXuBaPRhKwz7V+0oFUGYeZj0i06LvS085RFZ5Vl4aVfopXn /I1Wvz/CpT2qQkr6l2eu9X1y01zxvzseeYaTLBiryi9wVsj1cQ3Q2rZkOo+yESgf/f3t XfWyP/LP3EJXlujWICjjUSNDqJOLMEHKphBI5f9CW93BM40oIIuvLdY6b4WXabHy7YGE pcWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxFlQMqj1t1zPFZrf617uGV18pR2dtF4VEQD0H9rUkle9SaR1AG 9Ud0KOB6PA6d9qF71x0EsJEl413MnJ+eG5fQmWQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHosygdAH7gUrpD0/eduMUTUWoy9swdmeOtnyxKxCCByAndgChRD7hrs0w0F38hVNGKW6GoqRSTaVrn1m5Abj0= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c564:0:b0:35d:59a2:a322 with SMTP id b4-20020a92c564000000b0035d59a2a322mr18263000ilj.36.1702917951663; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 08:45:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Nagaev Boris Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:45:15 -0300 Message-ID: To: yurisvb@pm.me, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:38:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Lamport scheme (not signature) to economize on L1 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:45:54 -0000 Hey Yuri, On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:19=E2=80=AFAM Yuri S VB via bitcoin-dev wrote: > down from 136 from ECC. Schnorr signature has size 64 bytes (serialized format consists of x coordinate of R and of s, 32 bytes each). > The whole point is that, in the typical use case in which pre-image of ha= sh is, in fact, successfully broadcasted before maturity, commitment, the o= nly ECC signature in this protocol is discarded, and only two Lamport hashe= s end up being buried at L1. Two SHA256 hashes are 64 bytes in total, the same as one schnorr signature. > To push economy even further, we could implement a memory-hard hash like = Argon2 to do the same entropy-processing trade-off already utilized for pas= swords, so we could have hashes of, say 12 bytes, making it 24 in total 12 bytes security for spending bitcoins is not enough, is it? --=20 Best regards, Boris Nagaev