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 CB57ED12 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:30:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.sldev.cz (mail.sldev.cz [88.208.115.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E992A72E for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:30:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DA5E102F; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:22:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sldev.cz Received: from mail.sldev.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sldev.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gXgFFvjItTmX; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.37] (unknown [10.8.0.37]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14DA1E1027; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:22:31 +0000 (UTC) References: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: matejcik Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=jan.matejek@satoshilabs.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFqFmMgBEADPJ8NULpuu0nwox/tIfo+slGfcXZLUEZstNoaY9QgNuILJRtoJ6xZy8rQf S7iQlkaZcrpMJYdZtkRHvndkceBxesCG8io6tsU+t2SK6AvaW0FG95a9shFM/U9/JVO/QmBi IuQzbiE2XTZ/JStyEp4zpuyJqX1o9gzS/4MBXwj7Rzk8u+fHI28h96HILC2a0mC+c2gJ7f5t o/w+vxFZmk06COK08W5+odb9I8mjs0uf7jgTUEFrfwi6oCoTFmSon7cOy/WTieClwF/vUKuJ DBAtsMh2rxh8IHyH8xpR+Ay/K6jUWqeb3P2csQqMXmquYG/qdaHjQgxyuoJFbn+nT6jNGVQZ MjpZkMrGnjLccecaXlgx/rZK6ElCZ1PDHKOTW7A1YY1/eG7TWYnVv1ehQLueAoqyyfiEutsK E5jGbR0AmNjCahpeK7dxj+8g8TXpVsH207xJ+mqOm5RYqlX4OzfVvcnoHhlRIOu85i4I9rWm 1u/pP6uJFnBCKtuhhbmXCxM6wF7W5U6EVW3yymsPmSoVoaR024vffE3L5jZSsDMRxY6fDXNm ljRnOpT3l3d+kMVdAM3CdDCgmV87fdo4PAaGDfnmufGue/Gp0RiLCe/Wsm4DgIIa5UK6DmzD q0B6i9y/GJSPUChzZ8y7fYzuyXdpk/13gV2NRsskg9oXJVd1vQARAQABzSZtYXRlamNpayA8 amFuLm1hdGVqZWtAc2F0b3NoaWxhYnMuY29tPsLBfQQTAQgAJwUCWoWYyAIbIwUJCWYBgAUL CQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRDGf7EG5O0XHoU0D/4+fTbt4KELEtnpkirDH4mQ Vt3KtKJrI/gp/3u+r6jUWMv2V9iRFMs09GAVBmE2DkXXIlfaT1P0QfwVSpHC4k5lwKwSCSyS MUgBbQGPOiYMCgMQ+in4vjlqWWcx6jjlgxQctQHRrVG5jyi7BSb0jwG8rcYtx8SAYkN4joG/ oy2zMbq6qu+Vsl+xR5WwWF2mcUUyiVo7dSwNy+1PaeygOR9xAWkM8J42ckLfJgvyLSviBKnU 9rgg94ryEDAMNUL5yJUygQmUM/jdpyBpBycRbWMB+zIYDPVGnFj4vN8Hs9DyGUHVb2OqSW+q VPxD7U9m9z6J3NnY9HpaFX1DD8leK3TebpyYaeODY5jyk7retuLrMq+W4kJU0290xzlWa9sU wa7lTWw63pelfPUKZ+mjhSFQSZBqiuNv67CBd/UmoqMWSDrCWj+3IFQxReFbh47Wl4MUX2cK cLocYkBzDck7hH4YfK6jJ++teN6RKXr7P1y6EI25WEfJxWK9say7x/FRkNW0s98MxtOuwEsm /vHqHQQanAT4R5l+Rr7XfU7fpmH0As98qD81lc3RHbrxEXgA0ks2VuCxBWsPpzaHUFPOcE9H hsg1jSEDi/Mo6D4e2ap7FYXDgZiKye9WnSdPlVBqJxqinDDgSBv5wzKaEGQS0MKrF9myS7d0 pBSy1Dr6IWOegM7BTQRahZjIARAAwwT6h4IFvs/hmY9KHiX/GIbvybQUU71ZWYRE2KKo5E2c ZXBJj7SiDtU80bS+NCSeF2c0i4xOYgZlIYMqlgS8k1zfdBt/JHmG3tm1JgohVj+pm42RfBAF d0y05zz5wysQOw1M4WlWKZH0ameM+0/AGqspeZushWay8Q4yx1dO/6MeyPy/NwE/MKEsCOPV aN28DndN3iKOyriCQt/IhG/n6ORPRGyei3JYqxsnpW36BOmSPWJ7Qj2pFw53p5coPOEDL8mN Ique0LJZ3zVFVMa4i7HtqIEnYO+ZnKx2G8aLsHEir2pzBv6tMwlgETcUTVfK1ePN7OzhYy4q a38hMWzk0db2V+gOlAu6SuAi1ANkcPhCPUWxPIvXiNdd9iwe5gOzFy0FoZxj22rFwgUX8wcc cfWStgoE1MGE9G5zrqc01R0x7by8BOFkImAwTyJ9vq4jG+w7Npky3PhoHPgCT5knV7Q91U2I TqPOQBcMda0B+4LOaElb1sXqe44dHwcg4dMVngaea5xL7winSqU2Gtm6pqFAGut5F7JiYhPb dGUHJPMS67ONkKe5ARu/Z/r9XoFe2TxpkvNJ/+QJQ3PCiJ6ya31ij6HOIfFbZr3xlTyU/DvG SejIvDK/SnJMw+/x60bYAshYBp0uQgih1ugtoZh7cnKj3KfhlpXT0mL8rsl1QHsAEQEAAcLB ZQQYAQgADwUCWoWYyAIbDAUJCWYBgAAKCRDGf7EG5O0XHs2xD/92sa5L6gafP/rRKfo9u3/w s+7E/kKPgG4VGDeirLo8hbinCjPr0cfZ7OgDDvp0zy6lTdZc2tcHsEbiPqblzaSZimV5Y3EQ eIzz0UhY6YdDELr8pvdnB8qnOJHXgWmZTRYkRgxFOWI3v4STmOYZQ7MFv0kHBfV3htCjYTHS Qx2jQO4CTbcSEbkVwNv56OiZroabrHRf0WUSyzElf13P/MRFjUJFYYZDqc0iOWUh4QeXbFiY fLYpOCtm0nqaDdG1VD4jMpKq1FKBvTw4id1i7pONENd4BB7ytnDvKGdVI6oDnGUBsc5VUrEa h1PbbshNMbRtFigeMe8998jWhK4jQzeuDr0FSBlhxbluGfyMUgk7s6aBC9BOsdDkgtJk1Fd/ j9sWOj8Pxzc4lMQRfygm+QxxLdqa36Qh3oK+jfK7362CXlqBfb9ryerjfFGY4VqMBzQ+BFtj lYZSdVzGWlmLD9D88wzeByIZMScQPvrXSFwPO2/TuOQNCo0VHcgHpNFzeMRK2eT8bhry+dlq U+0Kxy2gQijw9j/EZlqR3w053EwUrfAAmHHeYPimXK4pc8oSw0s1A6hQO7Vc0SgblF8taFTM UhRR7xZg+l5vybAgrDYVL75b9CDscZqd7WVmZx+xU23sUG6SaxXI7PV6bPuMug0fD3SAsieu +vypQ3jCcUKGrA== Message-ID: <983ef62f-0147-2d62-3ecd-f149fa36818b@satoshilabs.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:22:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TdSCjyIJtexWZdXy4OJ5j4KTOlaLMo6SR" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:35:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts 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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:30:51 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --TdSCjyIJtexWZdXy4OJ5j4KTOlaLMo6SR Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="d7PPlsUULGht1H0PvEhla0RgYHVbRw7Xi"; protected-headers="v1" From: matejcik To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: tomas.susanka@satoshilabs.com Message-ID: <983ef62f-0147-2d62-3ecd-f149fa36818b@satoshilabs.com> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts References: In-Reply-To: --d7PPlsUULGht1H0PvEhla0RgYHVbRw7Xi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hello, this is our second e-mail with replies to Pieter's suggestions. On 16.6.2018 01:34, pieter.wuille at gmail.com (Pieter Wuille) wrote: > * Key-value map model or set model. >=20 > This was suggested in this thread: > https://twitter.com/matejcik/status/1002618633472892929 >=20 > The motivation behind using a key-value model rather than a simple > list of records was that PSBTs can be duplicated (given to multiple > people for signing, for example), and merged back together after > signing. With a generic key-value model, any implementation can remove > the duplication even if they don't understand fields that may have > been added in future extensions. >=20 > However, almost the same can be accomplished by using the simpler set > model (the file consists of a set of records, with no duplication > allowed). This would mean that it would technically be legal to have > two partial signatures with the same key for the same input, if a > non-deterministic signer is used. Strongly agree with this. Just to note, we should probably use varint for the field - this allows us, e.g., to create =E2=80=9Cnamespaces=E2=80=9D for future extens= ions by using one byte as namespace identifier and one as field identifier. >=20 > On the other hand, this means that certain data currently encoded > inside keys can be dropped, reducing the PSBT size. This is > particularly true for redeemscripts and witnessscripts, as they can > just be computed by the client when deserializing. The two types could > even be merged into just "scripts" records - as they don't need to be > separated based on the way they're looked up (Hash160 for P2SH, SHA256 > for P2WSH). The same could be done for the BIP32 derivation paths, > though this may be expensive, as the client would need to derive all > keys before being able to figure out which one(s) it needs. It could be nice if the output scripts records would be ordered the same as their corresponding outputs. But what if the Creator doesn=E2=80=99t w= ant to include a script for an output? Perhaps the Script record should have a field to match it to the appropriate output. As for input scripts, we suggest that they are per-input and not included in the global record, see the other thread. >=20 > One exception is the "transaction" record, which needs to be unique. > That can either be done by adding an exception ("there can only be one > transaction record"), or by encoding it separately outside the normal > records (that may also be useful to make it clear that it is always > required). This seems to be the case for some fields already - i.e., an input field must have exactly one of Non-witness UTXO or Witness Output. So =E2=80=9C= adding an exception=E2=80=9D is probably just a matter of language? We=E2=80=99d also like to note that the =E2=80=9Cnumber of inputs=E2=80=9D= field should be mandatory - and as such, possibly also a candidate for outside-record fie= ld. >=20 > * Ability for Combiners to verify two PSBT are for the same transaction= >=20 > Clearly two PSBTs for incompatible transactions cannot be combined, > and this should not be allowed. >=20 > It may be easier to enforce this if the "transaction" record inside a > PSBT was required to be in a canonical form, meaning with empty > scriptSigs and witnesses. In order to do so, there could be per-input > records for "finalized scriptSig" and "finalized witness". Actually > placing those inside the transaction itself would only be allowed when > all inputs are finalized. Agreed! Also increases clarity, which is desired. > * Derivation from xpub or fingerprint >=20 > For BIP32 derivation paths, the spec currently only encodes the 32-bit > fingerprint of the parent or master xpub. When the Signer only has a > single xprv from which everything is derived, this is obviously > sufficient. When there are many xprv, or when they're not available > indexed by fingerprint, this may be less convenient for the signer. > Furthermore, it violates the "PSBT contains all information necessary > for signing, excluding private keys" idea - at least if we don't treat > the chaincode as part of the private key. >=20 > For that reason I would suggest that the derivation paths include the > full public key and chaincode of the parent or master things are > derived from. This does mean that the Creator needs to know the full > xpub which things are derived from, rather than just its fingerprint. We don=E2=80=99t understand the rationale for this idea. Do you see a sce= nario where an index on master fingerprint is not available but index by xpubs is? In our envisioned use cases at least, indexing private keys by xpubs (as opposed to deriving from a BIP32 path) makes no sense. Maybe this folds into the proposal for generic derivation below, or something like implementation-specific derivation methods? best regards Jan Matejek Tomas Susanka --d7PPlsUULGht1H0PvEhla0RgYHVbRw7Xi-- --TdSCjyIJtexWZdXy4OJ5j4KTOlaLMo6SR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJbKRGmAAoJEMZ/sQbk7RcetAgP/RWo5jP7aAuM+DzQS4PKu1sC b7FPHhis4FW09Z3iNWK1lFnZSRKmNaKIHJIBUXmagseur0NQJhFkPJCV6rp6Wtuq IkRkEkgQR7Dv+lEIc7eklJ3IoAkQ3rls1sA03iBQvMXp8qCsLTtxjFY6W3XBHo8R TarnMS17LvYvh1k4NqleGHUsTrGVFL2CHhIdcHo00O5pyqVAYPYWXxOk1SV9YDo/ mlkuW0r66A1Cf/maxchd8HacXRzzxLtladklaThakYoMXxh7vcvMzstActCrK5a7 SQ4s9jRgmWaBhNNIJmx6It1Cj/heXXJ1Sy+OjaJnF8lboibFuUvbFslEkJB+mVy+ 0Zc7mHGnRQWd6W039oVfGVhN5EKnb6kzYAlHeOpyPPnWoykBX3NE4e+dk9fnt7sU 2ij08/HXjwOyQZdu/09ZKLUYh0hV/Vwgq3B8M1Kzp7J2ddhxkGs/0yh8u5GyBGBA SmYb3Rf+d7cA6R3SY771tM8WkP4C+1VmMZ1r/Kriu7OmoRsebl9TQpOYIpP6+GtJ yX5sHPtzPf7isXCA3MUItUFXI7ZxyTjbGxLtHiDDiMtx7RMBci1i4mh3jP0jC84+ hwAz0QkdyGFFWEvt5YvCwiEue/AyuyIhLq6ntLLKzBeN3MZkvtd7M72HAtadPa0H xZt0/ENhKJCBZYdoP7Ql =9sHW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TdSCjyIJtexWZdXy4OJ5j4KTOlaLMo6SR--