[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: bitcoin-dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Adding SIGHASH to TXID
From: Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev () lists ! linuxfoundation ! org>
Date: 2022-05-07 11:55:35
Message-ID: CAD5xwhjqF3b896vV=w7BPDMAnhe49qJO-KgPyAW+5qKjZywEhQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Have you seen the inherited ID proposal from John Law on this list?
It's a pretty thorough treatment of this type of proposal, curious if you
think it overlaps what you had in mind?
Honestly, I've yet to fully load in exactly how the applications of it
work, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
On Sat, May 7, 2022, 4:55 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> For now, we have txid:vout as a previous transaction output. This means
> that to have a stable TXID, we are forced to use SIGHASH_ALL somewhere,
> just to prevent any transaction modifications that can happen during adding
> some inputs and outputs. But it seems that new sighashes could be far more
> powerful than we expected: it is technically possible to not only remove
> previous transaction output by using SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT. We can do more and
> do it better, we could decide, how to calculate this txid at all!
>
> So, something like SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE would be similar to SIGHASH_NONE
> (applied to the previous transaction, taken from txid). To have
> SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, we need to remove absolutely everything, I don't know
> any such sighashes, because even SIGHASH_NONE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY will
> commit at least to some fields, for example to the locktime. But, if we
> introduce SIGHASH_PREVOUT_XYZ flags for all existing sighashes, we would
> have this:
>
> SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE
> SIGHASH_PREVOUT_SINGLE
> SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ALL
> SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ANYONECANPAY
>
> Then, the procedure is as follows: we use txid:vout to find our previous
> transaction. Then, we apply those sighashes to this previous transaction,
> to form a new txid, that will be checked during every OP_CHECKSIG-based
> opcode. In this way, our txid:vout is used just to do transaction lookup,
> after that, sighashes can be applied to the previous transaction, so our
> txid could remain stable, even if someone will add some inputs and outputs.
>
> By default, we could use SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ALL, that would mean our
> txid:vout remains unchanged. Then, SIGHASH_PREVOUT_SINGLE would obviously
> mean, that we want to commit only to this particular previous transaction
> output. That would allow adding any new outputs to the previous
> transaction, without affecting our replaced txid, but also without blindly
> accepting any txid, because some data of the previous transaction would be
> still hashed.
>
> Then, SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE is an interesting case, because it would mean
> that no outputs of the previous transaction are checked. But still, the
> inputs will be! That would mean: "I don't care about in-between addresses,
> but I care that it was initiated from these inputs". In this case, it is
> possible to choose some input without those flags, and then apply
> SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE many times, to make sure that everything started from
> that input, but everything in-between can be anything.
>
> All of those three SIGHASH_PREVOUT_XYZ flags could be combined with
> SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ANYONECANPAY. That would mean all inputs of the previous
> transaction are discarded, except from the input number matching "vout". Or
> we could just use SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ANY instead and discard all inputs from
> that previous transaction, that could also be combined with other sighashes.
>
> So, to sum up, by applying sighashes to the previous transaction, instead
> of allowing for any transaction, we could still have some control of our
> txid, and I think it could be better than just saying "give me any txid, I
> will accept that". I think in most cases we don't want to allow any txid:
> we want to only "control the flow", just to make sure that our signatures
> will sign what we want and will not be invalidated by changing some
> transaction inputs and outputs, unrelated to the currently-checked
> signature.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="auto">Have you seen the inherited ID proposal from John Law on this \
list?<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's a pretty thorough treatment \
of this type of proposal, curious if you think it overlaps what you had in \
mind?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Honestly, I've yet to fully \
load in exactly how the applications of it work, but I'd be interested to hear \
your thoughts.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Sat, May 7, 2022, 4:55 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <<a \
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">For now, we have txid:vout as a \
previous transaction output. This means that to have a stable TXID, we are forced to \
use SIGHASH_ALL somewhere, just to prevent any transaction modifications that can \
happen during adding some inputs and outputs. But it seems that new sighashes could \
be far more powerful than we expected: it is technically possible to not only remove \
previous transaction output by using SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT. We can do more and do it \
better, we could decide, how to calculate this txid at all!<br> <br>
So, something like SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE would be similar to SIGHASH_NONE (applied to \
the previous transaction, taken from txid). To have SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, we need to \
remove absolutely everything, I don't know any such sighashes, because even \
SIGHASH_NONE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY will commit at least to some fields, for example \
to the locktime. But, if we introduce SIGHASH_PREVOUT_XYZ flags for all existing \
sighashes, we would have this:<br> <br>
SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE<br>
SIGHASH_PREVOUT_SINGLE<br>
SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ALL<br>
SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ANYONECANPAY<br>
<br>
Then, the procedure is as follows: we use txid:vout to find our previous transaction. \
Then, we apply those sighashes to this previous transaction, to form a new txid, that \
will be checked during every OP_CHECKSIG-based opcode. In this way, our txid:vout is \
used just to do transaction lookup, after that, sighashes can be applied to the \
previous transaction, so our txid could remain stable, even if someone will add some \
inputs and outputs.<br> <br>
By default, we could use SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ALL, that would mean our txid:vout remains \
unchanged. Then, SIGHASH_PREVOUT_SINGLE would obviously mean, that we want to commit \
only to this particular previous transaction output. That would allow adding any new \
outputs to the previous transaction, without affecting our replaced txid, but also \
without blindly accepting any txid, because some data of the previous transaction \
would be still hashed.<br> <br>
Then, SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE is an interesting case, because it would mean that no \
outputs of the previous transaction are checked. But still, the inputs will be! That \
would mean: "I don't care about in-between addresses, but I care that it was \
initiated from these inputs". In this case, it is possible to choose some input \
without those flags, and then apply SIGHASH_PREVOUT_NONE many times, to make sure \
that everything started from that input, but everything in-between can be \
anything.<br> <br>
All of those three SIGHASH_PREVOUT_XYZ flags could be combined with \
SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ANYONECANPAY. That would mean all inputs of the previous transaction \
are discarded, except from the input number matching "vout". Or we could \
just use SIGHASH_PREVOUT_ANY instead and discard all inputs from that previous \
transaction, that could also be combined with other sighashes.<br> <br>
So, to sum up, by applying sighashes to the previous transaction, instead of allowing \
for any transaction, we could still have some control of our txid, and I think it \
could be better than just saying "give me any txid, I will accept that". I \
think in most cases we don't want to allow any txid: we want to only \
"control the flow", just to make sure that our signatures will sign what we \
want and will not be invalidated by changing some transaction inputs and outputs, \
unrelated to the currently-checked signature.<br> \
_______________________________________________<br> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank" \
rel="noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> <a \
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer \
noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic