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 9970B92B for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:42:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1EE3E3 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b9so2817372wmh.0 for ; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stampery.co; s=google; h=from:reply-to:subject:to:references:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OLEonmRBRpMk/g2kg1Bq+lOOPPlNbNkKe+/+EOdXmFA=; b=tGmobpu+C/n0cjA5CURr3KesutUWcTCt1OKEJ+4ITg0uDHBWQDNWKCGmBI0716k4kw jGVw4hFkgDHEXC1fJWQfK2ciwcrP6ABiTI4SLEvQi60KdRXszn42/tPJ0ibnM38lBHDW bSq6xYa5CftPr3lvQlcFfIYE3U/BhwD+NXVaI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:reply-to:subject:to:references:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OLEonmRBRpMk/g2kg1Bq+lOOPPlNbNkKe+/+EOdXmFA=; b=WckouDEr0Iflh5b7UJdNu31JL5dB8aicle9IEEb9g8RF1knloX07O32NLmzGdIq6MZ bLsecP1PzCePb75Kd5zvtZ2Ml652EDE5hr7FNGcudCI2ugKwsBRDsiPQ5Sd0Ho5eLGnm tPSxh+FYunSMDWmlrTP6ACSIAGVVvzySY9CkPUhqpEw1F786tCq64JO6fZHYF0WaXJEm yUB/XEZNFR4QQApagqTChtPK0Pb8Bdl6MfiWOAPuLQWWFwhlXSkSksxOIsG1D60+u4DQ 30NoCowbsin4fbe72uVL1v3YgKRknOszrN3/RmZfdlWgDGi+6OrqlICWuccfwi3AHBSb ZJsA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7qBCZ/CYIRzPx9PiIs4u09aWgp0xvoEL22HvVZSKGbPxUFYwnr VSHa4mi6Pog7J9VksI7v7LLmHCQyM7c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Qo4VDQH/VNTq8FxeDcU/75wJCfBn6QuHfYuAAB8fivLDXS5kspjGAy1ek2c4W4jpVo+mcrFQ== X-Received: by 10.28.215.194 with SMTP id o185mr290276wmg.105.1509727361270; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.42] (32.red-83-45-227.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [83.45.227.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k69sm3760616wmg.45.2017.11.03.09.42.39 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:42:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a1n_S=c3=a1nchez_de_Pedro_Crespo?=" X-Google-Original-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a1n_S=c3=a1nchez_de_Pedro_Crespo?= Reply-To: adan@stampery.com To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <052D6E20-7194-4645-B628-1B7B7FECF330@gmail.com> Organization: Stampery Message-ID: <8540b26e-d6a9-3e3c-2ff6-6edb7e1e03df@stampery.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:42:38 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 17:01:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Simplicity proposal - Jets? 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: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 16:42:44 -0000 If I did understand it right, you don't need to publish the Simplicity code for the "jetable" expression. That's the whole point of MAST. Each Simplicity expression can be identified by its MAST root (the Merkle root of all branches in its Abstract Syntax Tree). Imagine you want to write a Simplicity script that is roughly equivalent to P2PKH. Regardless of directly writing such script or using a higher level smart contract language, you won't likely write for yourself the part in which you compute the hash of the public key. Instead, you are expected to include some external library providing hash functions or at least copy and paste such function into your code. As everyone is expected to use the same, let's say, RIPEMD160 implementation, it doesn't matter how you included such function in your program. The point is that once you build the MAST for your program, such function will be completely replaced by its MAST root---which is nothing but a hash. This way, when the Simplicity interpreter (the BitMachine) bumps into the hash, it can look for it in a predefined jets dictionary and find the binary for a precompiled, formally proven implementation of a function that is perfectly equivalent to the original Simplicity code. On 03.11.2017 13:59, Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Thank you for your answer, Russel. > > When a code path takes advantage of a jet, does the Simplicity code > still need to be publicly available/visible in the blockchain? I imagine > that for big algorithms (say for example EDCA verification/SHA256 > hashing etc), it would take up a lot of space in the blockchain. > Is there any way to mitigate this? > > I guess in a softfork for a jet, the Simplicity code for a jet could be > defined as "consensus", instead of needed to be provided within every > script output. > When the Simplicity interpretor encounters an expression that has a jet, > it would run the C/Assembly code instead of interpreting the Simplicity > code. By formal verification we would be sure they match. > > Greetings > Hampus > > 2017-11-03 2:10 GMT+01:00 Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev > >: > > Hi Jose, > > Jets are briefly discussed in section 3.4 of > https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf > > > The idea is that we can recognize some set of popular Simplicity > expressions, and when the Simplicity interpreter encounters one of > these expressions it can skip over the Simplicity interpreter and > instead directly evaluate the function using specialized C or > assembly code. > > For example, when the Simplicity interpreter encounters the > Simplicity expression for ECDSA verification, it might directly call > into libsecp rather than continuing the ECDSA verification using > interpreted Simplicity. > > HTH. > > > On Nov 2, 2017 18:35, "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to follow this Simplicity proposal and I am seeing > all over references to ‘jets’, but I haven’t been able to find > any good reference to it. > Can anyone give me a brief explanation and or a link pointing to > this feature? > Thanks > >> On 31 Oct 2017, at 22:01, >> bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> wrote: >> >> The plan is that discounted jets will be explicitly labeled as >> jets in the >> commitment.  If you can provide a Merkle path from the root to >> a node that >> is an explicit jet, but that jet isn't among the finite number >> of known >> discounted jets, > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -- Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo CTO, Stampery Inc. San Francisco - Madrid