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
|
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 02C46D2F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:09:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-1857040130.protonmail.ch (mail-1857040130.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.130])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F4084DA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:09:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 03:09:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1529564961;
bh=bocvGLS/Wqr1zF6xyDfFmD0EvCGhVORaygUqEGGBKxM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=mzkEeu/nZOlyDZtbOpodxqVevmaUZhyDD8tOko7e0uEJ3iUCQd4hB84D+ZzjvBV8/
0UuKIzmsSuzW6R4mWjLanrfdLknnlLurVN3jhFKJG4oxsa78pLvKp5IE7rfCxKH2Zl
E88kxGqi6nrQ6+yU0gbzWiRJ1DBIE2BdbYlhcs+o=
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <rDrVW1mai6zBTyuv-8ElgFBYr213ewiG-5DdBnZIi_QC1hosefWYWq6-oqmK72bP7NxOAXiQvwDiQS_JEgaPPcmXywBU4nhqVhrt7HtlsMo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQihGNvOsRVyr6xN_K0PPse1URKKWH06N7HpcR=OowYYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgKY-nmL=x+LVubtB0fFBAwd-1CDHT7zhidX8p9DLSGyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBh4CESPV_5TpPn0H3Zpv2Ump_0txxS63W_S2f3Lxezq1A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRXYtTyqqQp8Ehs_q_KsT7usA+vYSmngStnndd1rWNVNw@mail.gmail.com>
<D996F4E8-ACC6-4A49-B841-0F3285344DF6@xbt.hk>
<CAPg+sBgEUV5KNFi1L4MhR-3KAX9gbQKdzWneaEzF+QsKSXYu8A@mail.gmail.com>
<f5c0012e55242d85ec2cc740cc8d081ef5da9145.camel@timruffing.de>
<CAPg+sBhYkQdjDcKvxUiGZCs220N0dqRMYoweCbOB2dgzD9UpzA@mail.gmail.com>
<01976660b06809ea27af7db4bbceb08220ea2568.camel@timruffing.de>
<7nh2F_OPfoHDxrXVG8Dlu51iJ4nnlLFo962B7gI1cN3nyLupsjjlZF9-2nO525E5ENlhMSXprJWkHty8AAxe7W7FRZZpv00C0BptZZcvzK8=@protonmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQihGNvOsRVyr6xN_K0PPse1URKKWH06N7HpcR=OowYYw@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, 21 Jun 2018 12:25:58 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Should Graftroot be optional?
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, 21 Jun 2018 07:09:25 -0000
Good morning Greg,
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:12 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>=20
> > This has the advantage that the Graftroot signature commits to a single=
outpoint and cannot be used to spend all outpoints that happen to pay to t=
he same `P` public key.
>=20
> If it isn't possible to make a graftroot signature independent of the
>=20
> outpoint then the functionality is greatly reduced to the point of
>=20
> largely mooting it-- because you could no longer prepare the grafts
>=20
> before the coins to be spent existed, and meaning you must stay online
>=20
> and sign new grafts as coins show up. In my view graft's two main
>=20
> gains are being able to delegate before coins exist and making the
>=20
> conditional transfer atomic (e.g. compared to just pre-signing a
>=20
> transaction). Making outpoint binding optional, so that you could
>=20
> choose to either sign for particular outputs or in a blanket way would
>=20
> be a lot more useful.
>=20
Perhaps `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` can do this? One can argue that the option to not=
commit a signature to refer to a specific outpoint is orthogonal to the op=
tion to Graftroot, so having a separate flag for that makes sense.
The proposal could then be:
1. Define a transaction `nVersion` reserved for Graftroot. Transactions wit=
h that `nVersion` are disallowed in blocks.
2. If a next-SegWit-version P2WPKH (or P2WPK) is spent, and the top witness=
stack item is a signature with `SIGHASH_GRAFTROOT` flag, then this is a Gr=
aftroot spend.
3. The signature signs an imaginary 1-input 1-output tx, with the input cop=
ied from the spending tx, the output value being the entire output being sp=
ent, and the output `scriptPubKey` being the Graftroot script (second to to=
p witness stack). The imaginary tx has the Graftroot-reserved `nVersion`.
4. The Graftroot signature has its other flags `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` evaluated =
also when verifying it signs the imaginary tx.
5. The Graftroot signature and the Graftroot script are popped and the scri=
pt executed in the context of the original Graftroot-spending tx.
This lets users select whether committing to a specific outpoint is needed =
or not, independently of Graftroot.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
