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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
|
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E760C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 May 2022 10:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB29610B9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 May 2022 10:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
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,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id qG7YtE2TqrUx
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 May 2022 10:57:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from smtpo105.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo105.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.149.158])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09D961079
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 May 2022 10:57:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq1v.m5r2.onet (pmq1v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.67])
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4KysL53qxSzgcN;
Wed, 11 May 2022 12:57:01 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
t=1652266621; bh=5Za62nsdX/BUJy3N/DVtQHPO7SQH0kcpgdbt1WoOVYk=;
h=From:Cc:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From;
b=GzVGtLqbjI0ZIXdTrAyAhiN2nCAzxC95kPAWUJbg+x5po9bdLV31yMkcrzaLB+tgm
GmPLlHOCzrTMEqlDNk0infDgqYWT/E6HQ/M/LWpRDYS+88Yn7gX3ysMkqc/hAMuc0k
WM3DWLF35Xgdt6jEWyAoDnHBdQl7rBnzjFIFfSkA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [82.177.167.2] by pmq1v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
Wed, 11 May 2022 12:57:01 +0200
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info>
In-Reply-To: <6pDae6X_tAfMTldPPsad5CSHPF98NVbTf06JxRCs7RqJGyrOqLALsDHHa_3C5DbbfpAVnzLMWCn-7e0FwQO-TOk4XxWYIiaYomuA9NJjkEQ=@protonmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 12:57:01 +0200
Message-Id: <161946014-482cdec305e2bd7a2c3fc4774c70239d@pmq1v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;82.177.167.2;PL;3
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:13:03 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy covenants (OP_CAT2)
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: Wed, 11 May 2022 10:57:10 -0000
> Looks like `OP_CAT` is not getting enabled until after we are reasonably =
sure that recursive covenants are not really unsafe.
Maybe we should use OP_SUBSTR instead of OP_CAT. Or even better: OP_SPLIT. =
Then, we could have OP_SPLIT <n> <pos1> <pos2> ... <posN> that would split =
a string N times (so there will be N+1 pieces). Or we could have just OP_SP=
LIT <pos> to split one string into two. Or maybe OP_2SPLIT and OP_3SPLIT, j=
ust to split into two or three pieces (as we have OP_2DUP and OP_3DUP). I t=
hink OP_SUBSTR or OP_SPLIT is better than OP_CAT, because then things alway=
s get smaller and we can be always sure that we will have one byte as the s=
mallest unit in our Script.
On 2022-05-08 04:20:19 user ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Good morning shesek,
> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 5:08 PM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > * Even ***with*** `OP_CAT`, the following will enable non-recursive cov=
enants without enabling recursive covenants:
> > * `OP_CTV`, ...
> > * With `OP_CAT`, the following would enable recursive covenants:
> > * `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`, ...
>
> Why does CTV+CAT not enable recursive covenants while CSFS+CAT does?
>
> CTV+CAT lets you similarly assert against the outputs and verify that the=
y match some dynamically constructed script.
>
> Is it because CTV does not let you have a verified copy of the input's pr=
evout scriptPubKey on the stack [0], while with OP_CSFS you can because the=
signature hash covers it?
>
> But you don't actually need this for recursion. Instead of having the use=
r supply the script in the witness stack and verifying it against the input=
to obtain the quine, the script can simply contain a copy of itself as an =
initial push (minus this push). You can then reconstruct the full script qu=
ine using OP_CAT, as a PUSH(<script>) followed by the literal <script>.
<OP_PUSH_length-of-script> OP_SWAP OP_DUP OP_CAT OP_CAT <rest of script=
...>
Ha, yes, looks like you are correct here.
`OP_CAT` makes *all* covenant opcodes recursive, because you can always qui=
ne using `OP_CAT`.
By itself it does not make recursive covenants, but with probably any opcod=
e it would.
Looks like `OP_CAT` is not getting enabled until after we are reasonably su=
re that recursive covenants are not really unsafe.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
