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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F031CE51
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 May 2018 02:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f176.google.com (mail-ua0-f176.google.com
[209.85.217.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C517180
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 24 May 2018 02:08:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f176.google.com with SMTP id e8-v6so34694uam.13
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 23 May 2018 19:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to; bh=81BylAftLRxQSXG/PFKDVugGfqmDcC7Kotzo3Mz130I=;
b=Ig5f6icns4QtXQyLSGhwKi2AL6JKgnarRGPAo1ls5Ci4m1GJ5iGBWo+YF+n8dY0HmQ
CxpVCahWJuqbVXKgmnB6Q4E8eDl9JXtX9qkwIoYPL8B7RV6SN4ImgMcKSq7hgooalaq1
zb7lxOCCyZxy/DSfKkR7EnesuqsThySInmpOBHbqik2UZcfabDLP/dMWZjqYAqCqO9aF
huDxBL/h5hJdJf2LSkg9STQddfI+NB8O7XRMqnYmM2N2DfGaAAceSS3SyvKZNjqKoz0a
K3Bcj8NHiaPeRbDYpSPlHoF5FFZhPMQsV3oj04vBE7687HW7hAZvKZcb+V2TEGY7kI1O
52kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=81BylAftLRxQSXG/PFKDVugGfqmDcC7Kotzo3Mz130I=;
b=GoWcwGzuGC1RRMdcohkvSJqT0nYRbaoTORyARw6d5J1rbdhgvTszHOrvxbxGr3ovMg
ie2q3lQ1pXS7GXrVRQzI8CwOtDK9sAHh+KfF9fBuKrQG8bTFhx+XjehiplW6kvZBfQX7
pGUxhEauwmOz/TYDFAV4/jMDWBRESkE8lnIBqeyD500AMqdRWFadwU0Ikds8QQrkRCCB
/czo3qtVYY+HRczsvHX21FGzIsSNNDZhRZn2GbJoSru3FTwp4jQcxSngk8Tw/MsciauX
pxw557//z/Ii+h4reZ6+oMpHhyRY2BZHvU4gDgZGGDnPN6HclejDZh//uM4TKKLlvhI0
t2Bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcqLArS3rcjROG6TWkombrlN2WtHLzlnw8lUmd72/Xd+595hRlR
/EZvj8gRql+7zkSb/z4sPzIuSnwlMymeavk9KRM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpc0yGQYGT/r/wgmhlS9xVxKjzUSPiQwJdXUhXGoWcibVZ+A3mAx9ixRULLyijHC96UmM8vKXXue9NyswctxHQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1c16:: with SMTP id
a22-v6mr3664105uaj.27.1527127687658;
Wed, 23 May 2018 19:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a67:5184:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2018 19:08:07
-0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBh4CESPV_5TpPn0H3Zpv2Ump_0txxS63W_S2f3Lxezq1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgKY-nmL=x+LVubtB0fFBAwd-1CDHT7zhidX8p9DLSGyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBh4CESPV_5TpPn0H3Zpv2Ump_0txxS63W_S2f3Lxezq1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 02:08:07 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _08qmLWwEIN9SElsoAkQOcT6iGM
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRXYtTyqqQp8Ehs_q_KsT7usA+vYSmngStnndd1rWNVNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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, 24 May 2018 02:08:10 -0000
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks everyone who commented so far, but let me clarify the context
> of this question first a bit more to avoid getting into the weeds too
> much.
My understanding of the question is this:
Are there any useful applications which would be impeded if a signing
party who could authorize an arbitrary transaction spending a coin had
the option to instead sign a delegation to a new script?
The reason this question is interesting to ask is because the obvious
answer is "no": since the signer(s) could have signed an arbitrary
transaction instead, being able to delegate is strictly less powerful.
Moreover, absent graftroot they could always "delegate" non-atomically
by spending the coin with the output being the delegated script that
they would have graftrooted instead.
Sometimes obvious answers have non-obvious counter examples, e.g.
Andrews points related to blindsigning are worth keeping in mind.
|
