From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 418E5FA9 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:52:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:22 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6C8C5C9 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CBE20E5E for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from web4 ([10.202.2.214]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:44:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=GSPCey 80ldS4HdRrJlipHdODOJ+ixzSDPGCB9Z2dZ1U=; b=E5ZQlaymSr2En0WQa/3ZjM dNB0IaFz8P1KbJgJ3FvevodXn901By1Nxx/ab56J680Withbr5Bk2l6rX7BVE8rp 7lvTMY9y9Zm6vM24igc8TM69l3SgVxUrBOQCYzju3UN7vlxSGHaWlypJ4e/XGS18 JjAmVBcVyQWCHB/oodi+bOSaypV6uhBEILXuHECsME51OR81XSMY6a5rAeM90KwV +ZfjzuxUe+ALr7Ff1QdOWAY6UanGL8pAZRee/JS7dmFE05KpuPNslmxTDZQ/s23e S2vH3hfwfFN8wryRaZIa2Sqp+mELCT1rlLhv6YLAU5TJyR7uWEOLu7OZtfPsEr0A == X-ME-Sender: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 808A9BA43B; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:44:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1519328661.898070.1280084352.71F1C1C3@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Daniel Edgecumbe To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-efbb3405 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:44:21 -0800 References: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:08:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Graftroot: Private and efficient surrogate scripts under the taproot assumption X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:52:45 -0000 > However, the non-interactive schnorr aggregation trick[1] can be applied to merge the S values of all graftroots and signatures in a transaction into a single aggregate. With this approach only a single R value for each graftroot need be published, lowering the overhead to ~32 bytes-- the same as taproot. This has a side benefit of binding the published grafts to a particular transaction, which might help avoid some screwups. I don't think that binding grafts to a particular transaction requires this aggregation. It seems to me that you could just sign H(txid, script) rather than H(script). I'm not aware of whether this would break aggregation. --- Daniel Edgecumbe / esotericnonsense esotericnonsense@esotericnonsense.com https://esotericnonsense.com https://danedgecumbe.com