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
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9A8C0037
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:33:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B61400F3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:33:30 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org C0B61400F3
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id cL-hYIAwEnrj
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:33:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (smtpauth.rollernet.us
[IPv6:2607:fe70:0:3::d])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B531A400C1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:33:29 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org B531A400C1
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3532D2800C09;
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:33:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.rollernet.us (webmail.rollernet.us
[IPv6:2607:fe70:0:14::a])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(Client did not present a certificate)
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA;
Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:33:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 09:33:24 -1000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: yurisvb@pm.me, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <nvbG12_Si7DVx9JbnnAvZbNdWk7hDQA23W1TXMkfYoU2iBA95Z1HzRnXgyiwFhDBmdi_rWL0dPllX1M9N9YZPDV47VgYADNd7CQA9CkAuX0=@pm.me>
References: <nvbG12_Si7DVx9JbnnAvZbNdWk7hDQA23W1TXMkfYoU2iBA95Z1HzRnXgyiwFhDBmdi_rWL0dPllX1M9N9YZPDV47VgYADNd7CQA9CkAuX0=@pm.me>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.15
Message-ID: <6068d3536339704f3621894b2ba0daa8@dtrt.org>
X-Sender: dave@dtrt.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Rollernet-Abuse: Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report. Abuse policy:
http://www.rollernet.us/policy
X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 4a99.6591c205.228e.0
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 <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: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:33:31 -0000
Hi Yuri,
I think it's worth noting that for transactions with an equal number of
P2TR keypath spends (inputs) and P2TR outputs, the amount of space used
in a transaction by the serialization of the signature itself (16 vbytes
per input) ranges from a bit over 14% of transaction size (1-input,
1-output) to a bit less than 16% (10,000-in, 10,000-out; a ~1 MvB tx).
I infer that to mean that the absolute best a signature replacement
scheme can do is free up 16% of block space.
An extra 16% of block space is significant, but the advantage of that
savings needs to be compared to the challenge of creating a highly peer
reviewed implementation of the new signature scheme and then convincing
a very large number of Bitcoin users to accept it. A soft fork proposal
that introduces new-to-Bitcoin cryptography (such as a different hash
function) will likely need to be studied for a prolonged period by many
experts before Bitcoin users become confident enough in it to trust
their bitcoins to it. A hard fork proposal has the same challenges as a
soft fork, plus likely a large delay before it can go into effect, and
it also needs to be weighed against the much easier process it would be
for experts and users to review a hard fork that increased block
capacity by 16% directly.
I haven't fully studied your proposal (as I understand you're working on
an improved version), but I wanted to put my gut feeling about it into
words to offer feedback (hopefully of the constructive kind): I think
the savings in block space might not be worth the cost in expert review
and user consensus building.
That said, I love innovative ideas about Bitcoin and this is one I will
remember. If you continue working on it, I very much look forward to
seeing what you come up with. If you don't continue working on it, I
believe you're likely to think of something else that will be just as
exciting, if not more so.
Thanks for innovating!,
-Dave
|
