path: root/fe/5792fdc47020aa43e2966d444818bb8b5ee0d5

Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F78FC0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:25:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655B681D68
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:25:15 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 655B681D68
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com
 header.i=@q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256
 header.s=20221208 header.b=mERdnLTH
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=no 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 mj2ndgrTu6DA
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:25:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BE7F81D70
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:25:13 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 1BE7F81D70
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id
 3f1490d57ef6-ca429c9dc0bso471510276.0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1690208713; x=1690813513;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=PvXOlnK236cc/Hs8Cpo1UHiMheNLtO0BofnhJfl10cQ=;
 b=mERdnLTHh6RducBjUkdgTkNGf8dKdk34Jn5H4Iwh3+azDfQlAjVlmhtZRciYeL2DwS
 gqBWgVYNT1ImlvkRWgdE4LW07ciTNhv1zq7Pwnve+1lBs/XoOF425d7cMx4DANicJwuQ
 mWEWE7MbH+gZddTFVjDlLrDtsBKJyFwdpk33TnsfjFYm40PIjPVqQm5SWs4CtGh53NeB
 487mXkVHovQnceAt9RzuNBOJYtNvdheVW/u0CpTOFKYwAzOVAZKOc5B39HXpa4EdFl+L
 hYkJgjVEVv5OP9XlPs4tyo/HjmexkoX3bITeEj8iCHrGGU2spMH7D7SO+FQ8pG3He/08
 7PhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1690208713; x=1690813513;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
 :reply-to;
 bh=PvXOlnK236cc/Hs8Cpo1UHiMheNLtO0BofnhJfl10cQ=;
 b=AxHZWFMiNl4JbMfiuHHUhE4HuNDqkmKjgNxbFwvAB8TtQtvOqhVt+EdIMewEeIg0VC
 Qi5TcMHSoCFReeX5jydT+ILLYhVG7BLC07eEMRqbeIlCRv7BZ56D476LIpjFdnCDXDFT
 4E0M37mlR3uch6moqEPhBmJF3HN1in7zSj0Z+Ff2eOiCXfBv+83mQjpkgqe9mDQryxEt
 yKVQgTt47s2adbnE+7XPU3xEUWLH7AJ7N7w2LrP58mRRbsUBkiycHTkGfZufkb20dIwH
 nak4jHd8e7+nxhny45rXzeGHQhIvBB/mbU4HsXrmaP3gkpci6ly+ugAuBSFa0WhZyO5A
 vUfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLa8OXqNuI0jWUrpRCAX0F3o+rzrI5OCuRVGdb6JDlqVuP38AnMT
 rgHqbvrqKonwGVfTKvg+J0cTEHk8v8+tg34YijScFYM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlHMpz0zyiEDA3Ed7eba2/V9fTDL3KonW+QVDxMsfGV4hIKloHBo9Pw9X6UxG9V15zZrIwbkgrOc28f7NQPwRlE=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:db48:0:b0:d0f:6efe:e9dd with SMTP id
 g69-20020a25db48000000b00d0f6efee9ddmr1432695ybf.0.1690208712674; Mon, 24 Jul
 2023 07:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJvkSsc_rKneeVrLkTqXJDKcr+VQNBHVJyXVe=7PkkTZ+SruFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4kTcpBuEgsQQDiKbxOQwJ9ZCuHvWXGotb8eWGESe2wJs5e-6ke7435NyGmNfBRP17w7UoXR4c59v_6uQWRonHfvv_n545WPgt68a0cBQi-k=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4kTcpBuEgsQQDiKbxOQwJ9ZCuHvWXGotb8eWGESe2wJs5e-6ke7435NyGmNfBRP17w7UoXR4c59v_6uQWRonHfvv_n545WPgt68a0cBQi-k=@protonmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:25:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+w+P_+tWbD_Ou7kpPT9j3Xz19mDQqYLd-J5xnM17Argg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea5a3106013c6113"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:31:11 +0000
Cc: Tom Trevethan <tom@commerceblock.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blinded 2-party Musig2
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:25:15 -0000

--000000000000ea5a3106013c6113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

as long as all parties provide a proof of secret key along with their
public key, that should not be possible

or you can do it as a two-step process where all parties provide a
commitment to the public key and nobody reveals a public key until that
commitment is received

or if you want to be paranoid you can do both

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023, 7:00 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Good morning Tom,
>
> Would this allow party 2 to itself be composed of N >= 2 parties?
>
> MuSig2 (as opposed to MuSig1) requires that signatories provide multiple
> `R` points, not just one each, which are finally aggregated by first
> combining them using the MuSig() public key compose function.
> This prevents party 2 from creating an `R` that may allow it to perform
> certain attacks whose name escapes me right now but which I used to know.
> (it is the reason why MuSig1 requires 3 round trips, and why MuSig2
> requires at least 2 `R` nonces per signatory)
>
> Your scheme has only one `R` per party, would it not be vulnerably to that
> attack?
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, July 24th, 2023 at 7:46 AM, Tom Trevethan via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> > We are implementing a version of 2-of-2 Schnorr Musig2 for statechains
> where the server (party 1 in the 2-of-2) will be fully 'blinded' - in that
> it can hold a private key that is required to generate an aggregate
> signature on an aggregate public key, but that it does not learn either: 1)
> The aggregate public key 2) The aggregate signature and 3) The message (m)
> being signed.
> >
> > In the model of blinded statechains, the security rests on the
> statechain server being trusted to report the NUMBER of partial signatures
> it has generated for a particular key (as opposed to being trusted to
> enforce rules on WHAT it has signed in the unblinded case) and the full set
> of signatures generated being verified client side
> https://github.com/commerceblock/mercury/blob/master/doc/merc_blind.md#blinding-considerations
> >
> > Given the 2-of-2 musig2 protocol operates as follows (in the following
> description, private keys (field elements) are denoted using lower case
> letters, and elliptic curve points as uppercase letters. G is the generator
> point and point multiplication denoted as X = xG and point addition as A =
> G + G):
> >
> > Party 1 generates private key x1 and public key X1 = x1G. Party 2
> generates private key x2 and public key X2 = x2G. The set of pubkeys is L =
> {X1,X2}. The key aggregation coefficient is KeyAggCoef(L,X) = H(L,X). The
> shared (aggregate) public key X = a1X1 + a2X2 where a1 = KeyAggCoef(L,X1)
> and a2 = KeyAggCoef(L,X2).
> >
> > To sign a message m, party 1 generates nonce r1 and R1 = r1G. Party 2
> generates nonce r2 and R2 = r2G. These are aggregated into R = R1 + R2.
> >
> > Party 1 then computes 'challenge' c = H(X||R||m) and s1 = c.a1.x1 + r1
> > Party 2 then computes 'challenge' c = H(X||R||m) and s2 = c.a2.x2 + r2
> >
> > The final signature is then (R,s1+s2).
> >
> > In the case of blinding this for party 1:
> >
> > To prevent party 1 from learning of either the full public key or final
> signature seems straightforward, if party 1 doesn't not need to
> independently compute and verify c = H(X||R||m) (as they are blinded from
> the message in any case).
> >
> > 1) Key aggregation is performed only by party 2. Party 1 just sends X1
> to party 2.
> > 2) Nonce aggregation is performed only by party 2. Party 1 just sends R1
> to party 2.
> > 3) Party 2 computes c = H(X||R||m) and sends it to party 1 in order to
> compute s1 = c.a1.x1 + r1
> >
> > Party 1 never learns the final value of (R,s1+s2) or m.
> >
> > Any comments on this or potential issues would be appreciated.
> >
> > Tom
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000ea5a3106013c6113
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">as long as all parties provide a proof of secret key alon=
g with their public key, that should not be possible<div dir=3D"auto"><br><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">or you can do it as a two-step process where all par=
ties provide a commitment to the public key and nobody reveals a public key=
 until that commitment is received</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">or if you want to be paranoid you can do both</div></div><br><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 2=
4, 2023, 7:00 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good morning Tom,<br>
<br>
Would this allow party 2 to itself be composed of N &gt;=3D 2 parties?<br>
<br>
MuSig2 (as opposed to MuSig1) requires that signatories provide multiple `R=
` points, not just one each, which are finally aggregated by first combinin=
g them using the MuSig() public key compose function.<br>
This prevents party 2 from creating an `R` that may allow it to perform cer=
tain attacks whose name escapes me right now but which I used to know.<br>
(it is the reason why MuSig1 requires 3 round trips, and why MuSig2 require=
s at least 2 `R` nonces per signatory)<br>
<br>
Your scheme has only one `R` per party, would it not be vulnerably to that =
attack?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.<br>
<br>
------- Original Message -------<br>
On Monday, July 24th, 2023 at 7:46 AM, Tom Trevethan via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" re=
l=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; We are implementing a version of 2-of-2 Schnorr Musig2 for statechains=
 where the server (party 1 in the 2-of-2) will be fully &#39;blinded&#39; -=
 in that it can hold a private key that is required to generate an aggregat=
e signature on an aggregate public key, but that it does not learn either: =
1) The aggregate public key 2) The aggregate signature and 3) The message (=
m) being signed.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; In the model of blinded statechains, the security rests on the statech=
ain server being trusted to report the NUMBER of partial signatures it has =
generated for a particular key (as opposed to being trusted to enforce rule=
s on WHAT it has signed in the unblinded case) and the full set of signatur=
es generated being verified client side <a href=3D"https://github.com/comme=
rceblock/mercury/blob/master/doc/merc_blind.md#blinding-considerations" rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/commerceblo=
ck/mercury/blob/master/doc/merc_blind.md#blinding-considerations</a><br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Given the 2-of-2 musig2 protocol operates as follows (in the following=
 description, private keys (field elements) are denoted using lower case le=
tters, and elliptic curve points as uppercase letters. G is the generator p=
oint and point multiplication denoted as X =3D xG and point addition as A =
=3D G + G):<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Party 1 generates private key x1 and public key X1 =3D x1G. Party 2 ge=
nerates private key x2 and public key X2 =3D x2G. The set of pubkeys is L =
=3D {X1,X2}. The key aggregation coefficient is KeyAggCoef(L,X) =3D H(L,X).=
 The shared (aggregate) public key X =3D a1X1 + a2X2 where a1 =3D KeyAggCoe=
f(L,X1) and a2 =3D KeyAggCoef(L,X2).<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; To sign a message m, party 1 generates nonce r1 and R1 =3D r1G. Party =
2 generates nonce r2 and R2 =3D r2G. These are aggregated into R =3D R1 + R=
2.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Party 1 then computes &#39;challenge&#39; c =3D H(X||R||m) and s1 =3D =
c.a1.x1 + r1<br>
&gt; Party 2 then computes &#39;challenge&#39; c =3D H(X||R||m) and s2 =3D =
c.a2.x2 + r2<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; The final signature is then (R,s1+s2).<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; In the case of blinding this for party 1:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; To prevent party 1 from learning of either the full public key or fina=
l signature seems straightforward, if party 1 doesn&#39;t not need to indep=
endently compute and verify c =3D H(X||R||m) (as they are blinded from the =
message in any case).<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; 1) Key aggregation is performed only by party 2. Party 1 just sends X1=
 to party 2.<br>
&gt; 2) Nonce aggregation is performed only by party 2. Party 1 just sends =
R1 to party 2.<br>
&gt; 3) Party 2 computes c =3D H(X||R||m) and sends it to party 1 in order =
to compute s1 =3D c.a1.x1 + r1<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Party 1 never learns the final value of (R,s1+s2) or m.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Any comments on this or potential issues would be appreciated.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Tom<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000ea5a3106013c6113--