Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] More thoughts on NOINPUT safety

[Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]



> On 20 Mar 2019, at 4:07 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi aj,
> 
> Re-reading again, I think perhaps I was massively confused by this:
> 
>> - alternatively, we could require every script to have a valid signature
>> that commits to the input. In that case, you could do eltoo with a
>> script like either:
>> 
>> <A> CHECKSIGVERIFY <B> CHECKSIG
>> or <P> CHECKSIGVERIFY <Q> CHECKSIG
>> 
>> 
>> where A is Alice's key and B is Bob's key, P is muSig(A,B) and Q is
>> a key they both know the private key for. In the first case, Alice
>> would give Bob a NOINPUT sig for the tx, and when Bob wanted to publish
>> Bob would just do a SIGHASH_ALL sig with his own key. In the second,
>> Alice and Bob would share partial NOINPUT sigs of the tx with P, and
>> finish that when they wanted to publish.
> 
> Do you mean that *either* of the above two scripts is OK, *or* do you mean they are alternatives within a single MAST or `OP_IF`?
> 

It means either.

If you use <A> CHECKSIGVERIFY <B> CHECKSIG style, A and B will exchange the NOINPUT sig, and they will add the required non-NOINPUT sig when needed.

If you use <muSig(A,B)> CHECKVERIFY <Q> CHECKSIG, A and B will co-sign the muSig(A,B) with NOINPUT. They will also share the private key of Q, so they could produce a non-NOINPUT sig when needed.

The first style is slightly easier as it doesn’t need muSig. But with 3 or more parties, the second style is more efficient.

However, if you use watchtower, you have to use the second style. That means you need to share the private key for Q with the watchtower, That also means the watchtower will have the ability to reply the NOINPU muSig. But it is still strictly better than anyone-can-replay.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6419 bytes --]