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
|
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 09E31E2B;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:59:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.133])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B4442D5;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:59:14 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1553219959;
bh=OMYRukINuDhfCqQMbF29z1gG4PP2GbzRFVLa/z3CUIU=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=Qya1GBo4o9LLkFY2G39R8tKvI4v87G0PZKiafdwXDFfZf+9BzYiXFsh78mQxcb/ZI
gVmB0UnS2V9q8v9Ro2ieUxBli1uMAe1k/oQapkpmmy/0Qcm1OKkBpAHnAedcrQUgY5
HCIdr/iH3mNGA6KIg+5eZ2JDP6nxAc0JmSLI5tow=
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <ITq8Tl8XaPXWzqs0F7yY3POHtysci93evnyLteDL9bYRxjjgJbTV_d-xCn_j5AZApGqCIBQ0p6UH8S-bD_n8hm1IMYS98ukpJkO4PGDXsuQ=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190321115522.lf7z6xb224lqqfla@erisian.com.au>
References: <20190313014143.ifffshwdux2jt7w5@erisian.com.au>
<87k1gubdjm.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87woku9q3g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<UOdt33VfD8o6NfeDKMSip0hUmy1_jyo65-ihunuMRRg8IfXEOq-W60-TPoINm5HErPqnY_-yd1x_VnnVihrvtXRA2OHkjeROZheZ_QV0Zvo=@protonmail.com>
<isp2OcX23r-Tfl-WSbybuKnppjVlZV52AM1GGEaQd8uHlkliikUBvK49WOnzgaxOjDuOCNdu6CsmHt6kfK0z_FRrOgYAYWrWaDniZA3EEZQ=@protonmail.com>
<20190321090614.7ir64g2ehn3pz2cb@erisian.com.au>
<5v4CPrMXyoMw0i1WtYYuIa_rMgkpq5NpnDhTNqTTZtfKKnFtwrbEGJnTD8ul71EM-MNpuo1R4znv4tPpwwm3Ys3m2Dbm3xsOGi96NYE9qfU=@protonmail.com>
<20190321115522.lf7z6xb224lqqfla@erisian.com.au>
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 02:59:36 +0000
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
"lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] More thoughts on NOINPUT safety
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:59:23 -0000
Good morning aj,
>
> If you are committing to the script code, though, then each settlement
> sig is already only usable with the corresponding update tx, so you
> don't need to roll the keys. But you do need to make it so that the
> update sig requires the CLTV; one way to do that is using codeseparator
> to distinguish between the two cases.
>
> > Also, I cannot understand `OP_CODESEPARATOR`, please no.
>
> If codeseparator is too scary, you could probably also just always
> require the locktime (ie for settlmenet txs as well as update txs), ie:
>
> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
> <muSig(A_u,B_u)> OP_CHECKDLSVERIFY <Q> OP_CHECKDLS
>
> and have update txs set their timelock; and settlement txs set a absolute
> timelock, relative timelock via sequence, and commit to the script code.
>
> (Note that both those approaches (with and without codesep) assume there'=
s
> some flag that allows you to commit to the scriptcode even though you're
> not committing to your input tx (and possibly not committing to the
> scriptpubkey). BIP118 doesn't have that flexibility, so the A_s_i and
> B_s_i key rolling is necessary)
I think the issue I have here is the lack of `OP_CSV` in the settlement bra=
nch.
Consider a channel with offchain transactions update-1, settlement-1, updat=
e-2, and settlement-2.
If update-1 is placed onchain, update-1 is also immediately spendable by se=
ttlement-1.
But settlement-1 cannot be spent by update-2 and thus the invalidation of o=
lder state fails.
The `OP_CSV` in the settlement branch of the update transaction outputs exi=
sts to allow later update transactions have higher priority over settlement=
transactions.
To ensure that a settlement signature can only take the settlement branch, =
we need a distinct public key for the branch, so at least `A_s` and `B_s` w=
ithout rolling them for each `i`, if we use `nLockTime` on the settlement t=
ransactions and enforce it with `OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY`.
It might be possible to do this with `OP_CODESEPARATOR`, but we do need the=
`OP_CSV` in the settlement branch.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
