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
|
Return-Path: <ali@notatether.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AAEC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 9 Aug 2022 13:09:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0991817AC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 9 Aug 2022 13:09:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org B0991817AC
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
unprotected) header.d=notatether.com header.i=@notatether.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail header.b=TX0LGdqa
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id mmhpqsEapgne
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 9 Aug 2022 13:09:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 002958176B
Received: from mail-4022.proton.ch (mail-4022.proton.ch [185.70.40.22])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 002958176B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 9 Aug 2022 13:09:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:09:13 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=notatether.com;
s=protonmail; t=1660050567; x=1660309767;
bh=QrGRU4UgtpOKhfPseY+Y4pkHZnTVW2oDKBGFC6rE2yc=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:
Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=TX0LGdqaKJxbtF3Rq3H5HVS7Ybl+nHcigWnjH80G6nHxN4+UmbLZzR21QR1XFIx2N
07M16mvrhaA2Oq3wj50k1u3Z1Aee7Noo4fDmaddUCxhZXfGqZAWjAaPoIrcyiCefBq
b6Kn1t6qnrHSePgMP//N7g75yvmRPcLEjPiEC1iuJgGSvQ40n1tJORIH2V7coP7C9l
f99mNqPSRNN48oDIZkUeqLo7o8Wd6Kpp7+/fBJil+qubS512YJoaKmTKSWI9XsinhY
k+6+VtJd/RUPVjDHb/P8faYtLMR5Hzoub2IeQiZho0C5TGoW4vkrglkVRLsg+V5Ehl
dHpEfnh1SxF4w==
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Ali Sherief <ali@notatether.com>
Reply-To: Ali Sherief <ali@notatether.com>
Message-ID: <20220809130908.yykum37tre7um4j3@artanis>
Feedback-ID: 34210769:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 20:45:59 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding BIP322 edge cases
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:09:34 -0000
Although there is a Github issue/PR at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull=
/1347 for addressing all the TODO items of BIP322, I decided to throw it in=
the mailing list again to see if anyone else has suggestions for dealing w=
ith them.
So in an older copy of the draft at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/b6=
b0126e2d04793ba52a40f05d24538fa3f2c9ad/bip-0322.mediawiki , I found the som=
e TODO items, and I will copy-paste the ones in the Specification section (=
for full proofs) here:
> TODO: How does this interact with as-of-yet-unspecified "Silent Transacti=
ons"?
> TODO: Some invalid opcode to allow only in various proof types?
> TODO: A way for the initial signer to delegate to another scriptPubKey; n=
eeded for better privacy and CoinJoin/Lightning compatibility
So to start with, I believe it will be very helpful to limit what opcodes s=
criptPubKeys to be elligible to sign from them. The specification already d=
oes so to a point, but in order for these to be recognizable, it's my opini=
on that one of the NOPs should be placed at the beginning of the script to =
activate proof parsing mode.
Of course, an opcode is not necessary at all, if the program is able to inf=
er from context where the proof is coming from. After all, since they canno=
t be broadcasted, they can't be mined in blocks, so will never be encounter=
ed in a full node's usual verifier. I'm not sure what is to be gained from =
adding an opcode - the only source for real transactions is from P2P-obtain=
ed blocks, so when a human inputs a signature to be verified, it can check =
that a real transaction is not being inserted by looking for the invalid in=
put.
For Silent Transactions, I have already given my suggestion in the PR, that=
some subsection can be made saying that it can operate with them by using =
its scriptPubKey (and other stuff that may be necessary - I am not excatly =
sure what goes inside the Witness stack of message_signature).
In the case of the last TODO, related to delegation to another scriptPubKey=
, I am not quite sure at the moment what to do about it - perhaps you guys =
can place a MAST (two Merkle branches, to be specific) - the first branch h=
as the original signer's scriptPubKey, the second branch contains the deleg=
ated signer's scriptPubKey.
- Ali
|
