Jim Posen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15 📝 Original message:I like this proposal, it ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15
📝 Original message:I like this proposal, it seems sufficiently general.

How are scripts with OP_CLTV and OP_CSV handled by verifiers? Do they
always succeed? Or should an nLockTime and nSequence also be included in
the proof in a way that can be parsed out and displayed to verifiers?

I assume any signatures in the scriptSig/witness data would have no sighash
type?

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Karl Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle at rosenbaum.se>
> wrote:
> > I can't really see from your proposal if you had thought of this: A soft
> > fork can make old nodes accept invalid message signatures as valid. For
> > example, a "signer" can use a witness version unknown to the verifier to
> > fool the verifier. Witness version is detectable (just reject unknown
> > witness versions) but there may be more subtle changes. Segwit was not
> > "detectable" in that way, for example.
> >
> > This is the reason why I withdrew BIP120. If you have thought about the
> > above, I'd be very interested.
>
> I'm not sure I see the problem. The scriptPubKey is derived directly
> from the address in all cases, which means the unknown witness version
> would have to be committed to in the address itself.
>
> So yeah, I can make a P2SH address with a witness version > 0 and a to
> me unknown pubkey and then fool you into thinking I own it, but I
> don't really see why you'd ultimately care. In other words, if I can
> SPEND funds sent to that address today, I can prove that I can spend
> today, which is the purpose of the tool, I think.
>
> For the case where the witness version HAS been upgraded, the above
> still applies, but I'm not sure it's a big issue. And it doesn't
> really require an old node. I just need to set witness version >
> current witness version and the problem applies to all nodes.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > I don't see a need for a new RPC interface, just a new signature format.
>
> All right.
>
> > Ideally, it should support not only just "proof I receive at this
> address",
> > but also "proof of funds" (as a separate feature) since this is a popular
> > misuse of the current message signing (which doesn't actually prove
> funds at
> > all). To do this, it needs to be capable of signing for multiple inputs.
>
> I assume by inputs you mean addresses/keys. The address field could
> optionally be an array. That'd be enough?
>
> > Preferably, it should also avoid disclosing the public key for existing
> or
> > future UTXOs. But I don't think it's possible to avoid this without
> something
> > MAST-like first. Perhaps it can be a MAST upgrade later on, but the new
> > signature scheme should probably be designed with it in mind.
>
> I'd love to not have to reveal the public key, but I'm not sure how it
> would be done, even with MAST.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be sufficient for old nodes to check for standardness of the
> spending script and report non-standard scripts as either invalid outright,
> or at least highly questionable? That should prevent confusion as long as
> soft forks are only making nonstandard behaviours invalid.
>
> That seems sensible to me. A warning would probably be useful, in case
> the verifier is running old software.
>
> -Kalle.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180314/0281bc39/attachment-0001.html>;