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
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Overview of anti-covert-channel signing techniques
Precedence: list

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