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: <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C432C013A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:31:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B8D86E71
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:31:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8twx9O29QZtJ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:31:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail2.protonmail.ch (mail2.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.22])
by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD1E86E56
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:31:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:31:13 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wuille.net;
s=protonmail2; t=1613075482;
bh=h0s7r3RrY8bZRSLiCneWFh0Rtpyt2DnssnhIUI+aSms=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=j25wUWwa2/Dw6cAXBrnDsXLwbZv4RkzKjCb9ILUZZshMs79SXQnoNviR1hW/+y0oV
VjXNj1lSh+azEeJG4GnzhezCSpgfDg2c1NBw2vFBf25eFaeEfxGlUTUbKsnL5FDrRs
/pKCw4eiNqswUrqqi0K6dL9P4CK++kqsfqkjScA5xtPxZkNJTfMtjPwtgjaavodZAl
NOquizDoIzrfVFDRNwv8aFgMOKsFhVl3USoyL0YuGBhsfnr3O9ifkWnmo/93gTw9uP
MmvkDYM+uODHMCAWMGnGNZxoJug+GbIr2pcjGEllC7P8Uk/wexrWJonydbN4BPALRk
N92wpsdjmxsYw==
To: Dr Maxim Orlovsky <orlovsky@protonmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Reply-To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Message-ID: <AzQAiClGFEDDux7hDtaD3As76nWOJELk9eck-_Ra4lDTwXQz2lYJEwRHjq9Gt65cA7AgKbidpNQlD-U6g5OKM-EaNvPbgva-ASzt-LcBDT8=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <5096768E-3A77-4CD8-AC22-105CA63152A7@protonmail.com>
References: <D962F4E0-E10F-433D-BFC9-3462A8A9CF7A@protonmail.com>
<mCGqNxZZgiKEO8gbRcHFUxcU5fGBMWMfkJdapM2Nuhe0gemmqXRfnyqqaRY70UFea1udvQe0LIYt9Ps3lsgDArVHlfeMOWacXqZ7ZiGzMTU=@wuille.net>
<5096768E-3A77-4CD8-AC22-105CA63152A7@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP32/43-based standard for Schnorr signatures &
decentralized identity
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:31:26 -0000
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 6:38 AM, Dr Maxim Orlovsky <orlovsky@protonm=
ail.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much for all the clarifications; it=E2=80=99s good to have=
them sorted out and clearly structured. From what you wrote it follows tha=
t we still need to reserve a dedicated purpose (with new BIP) for BIP340 si=
gnatures to avoid key reuse, am I right?
Maybe, but it would be for a particular way of using keys (presumably: sing=
le-key pay-to-taproot), not just the signature scheme itself. If you go dow=
n this path you'll also want dedicated branches for multisig participation,=
and presumably several interesting new policies that become possible with =
Taproot.
The only thing ECDSA/Schnorr specific about this is that - if you want to m=
aintain provable security - the keys used for ECDSA and BIP340 should be se=
parated by a hardened step. It seems however that all approaches people act=
ually use to prevent reuse do that already.
And as I said, dedicated branches only help for the simple case. For exampl=
e, it doesn't address the more general problem of preventing reuse of keys =
in multiple distinct groups of multisig sets you participate in. If you wan=
t to solve that you need to keep track of index is for participating in wh=
at - and once you have something like that you don't need dedicated purpose=
based derivation at all anymore.
So I'm not sure I'd state it as us *needing* a dedicated purpose/branch for=
single-key P2TR (and probably many other useful ways of using taproot base=
d spending policies...). But perhaps it's useful to have.
Greg Maxwell pointed out to me that there may be another reason to want non=
-reuse across ECDSA and BIP340 keys: if someone were to do all of these wro=
ng:
* not follow BIP340 and re-use RFC6979 for BIP340 nonce generation
* reuse the same keys for both
* sign the same message with both
... you would actually leak your private key. This isn't a concern for Bitc=
oin transaction signing however, as the sighash (message) indirectly commit=
s to BIP341 or not, and thus it'd be impossible to construct colliding mess=
ages. Still, it's a consideration to factor in.
Cheers,
--
Pieter
|
