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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C8E7F24
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.136])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613F4180
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:03:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:03:25 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1548324212;
bh=Jx+EQvN59P5MficRXMc/3DIr5BEBxCwxjBctnlROc/Q=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=NS/PDAhkS6XI3lf8+QiSEE36VysYllOn6JUEyBUJHVUGl1lU6Cu+sjwdcHpPiACdt
CEAtsa/v+mnvBDizJ10JE2TUQCOPMEH4ocgUbHmG/6SnsHpU5VgIjLAf2r9y+mQnfY
OT8tFpNBPPBrTVrxQoV34EVDP3sjbS5blsa+yfUI=
To: Dustin Dettmer <dustinpaystaxes@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <8u0ExA_vvhRGzmFmxUoyqk6IBrnUEtEHAEMKzqLWLxC6IgBtvZR24jZBgeMeJlsPcjJKYgVar_rC388ZNjP09ZUkukfP1KRcL9NMDkrVrQM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABLeJxRmdccf2tVZ4MsdsEj6H9+NnOpp+AeMLZwYh-zTMkWJXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACV3+OU1ynRuR2SioW+O+CAp5M7ZQA6af_hEY5JZCVrXpqjtKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BTyUDt_7oOQmFj_V61w2eUJ7rfi-eOuNphy5nN0xNAhY4sUHnR2-0U9m-ZEKip4YjFi2-hGBtucvFv7nCTVo3aBxZ94VQCa1Kx2pP_zgdxU=@protonmail.com>
<CACV3+OWjszx6istHo7yaNxiS22kyhHQhcPxGT3QLDx3KPUMU6g@mail.gmail.com>
<nq9NDv6z-EJuJ9jGMWdlIZbpVM6Rm8QyuWL3nRYtXWF90I-cErA_WS1ib28kt950bZYyfF1_eP153aDjhUy523wYSM9TVaeHqeZdp3xJpsk=@protonmail.com>
<CACV3+OXQsUsgquJWZ9o8tTtak=axnbsdiNgLzF-j6yz1dDv4bA@mail.gmail.com>
<wTXHV7W_AXHz5xdhXJVJr2OdSpEOaFh0PBQubFdZv4JyF6SlImszj2QyF9G-_Dem06A3iBWLF3vdgiHC_NlsVqy7DFX5XTphajNnMqiU6r0=@protonmail.com>
<CABLeJxRmdccf2tVZ4MsdsEj6H9+NnOpp+AeMLZwYh-zTMkWJXw@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:47:50 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin Sidechains
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:03:37 -0000
Good morning Dustin,
> Wouldn=E2=80=99t a revealed private key for time locked funds create a ra=
ce to spend? I imagine miners who are paying attention would have the advan=
tage but it would still just be a race.
If Bitcoin had implemented RBF "properly" (i.e. not have the silly "opt-out=
" rule) then such races are won by bidding up the fees. A random person wh=
o is not the original staker would be willing to pay miners a fee up to the=
entire staked amount minus dustlimit satoshis; obviously a staker would be=
far less willing to pay up such a fee, so the random person slashing the f=
unds would have a major advantage in that race.
Thus the race will be won by whoever mines the highest-fee transaction.
It still becomes very unlikely that the staker will win unless the staker a=
lready has a significant mining hashpower (and if the staker has significan=
t hashpower, then the Bitoin layer itself is at peril anyway, never mind si=
dechains built on top of it).
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:14 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Good Morning Matt,
> >
> > > ### ZmnSCPxj,
> > >
> > > I'm intrigued by this mechanism of using fixed R values to prevent mu=
ltiple signatures, but how do we derive the R values in a way where they ar=
e
> > unique for each blockheight but still can be used to create signatures =
or verify?
> >
> > One possibility is to derive `R` using standard hierarchical derivation=
.
> > Then require that the staking pubkey be revealed to the sidechain netwo=
rk as actually being `staking_pubkey =3D P + hash(P || parent_R) * G` (poss=
ibly with some trivial protection against Taproot).
> > To sign for a blockheight `h`, you must use your public key `P` and the=
specific `R` we get from hierarchical derivation from `parent_R` and the b=
lockheight as index.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
