From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB18C002D for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 20:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCA940112 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 20:54:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 3DCA940112 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=FpfJeVhJ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6FUUSnbCrURH for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 20:54:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2A6514010E Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.135]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A6514010E for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 20:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 20:54:26 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1666558471; x=1666817671; bh=k8Ac9xIbqGpE9T23S/Jec6AN09qT0bMH/p3KR7Tf40w=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=FpfJeVhJ5tDndyg0Mg5F4VSkEFd20jQ/jyseZmjszoVDl8v8Cfxx2uuTp6VWJg+Pd zFzt6tQO/O2xgRhBos22wnWTPSl0s2m7IDSmCWVLRu0H/krcUJd+kjfMiTo2Qyumxa NDXGNtJ302YxpLCxVmGDBZ6RBpk+9O15akcMFYfQJyS++uptrVQWIFY3cm+sxXgJy/ nmyjBGy4PqNn8xrGXEfTSiWU1FFMse2dLPMgXYYuIdYHeIE8jyYIsHD5BFxHzwwmf2 Q76JVR9n0GRJmS45Eo92epR+CkU6wrRO2DbGdbRSzNoQFORM2Yhduonqg5EDn8OZBp TB0MrMYci+uZg== To: woltx From: alicexbt Message-ID: <9NRBqDuofrouYeeEea2AxtVOlSQ89-iUzH-BevnDyK4yQE_qGaCAn0hIPK5SkfSqQK8WiDl7-7TyvrT4m6VsXodO4MgUT-ZFaA9ycXd62z8=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 21:19:50 +0000 Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Silent Payment v4 (coinjoin support added) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 20:54:34 -0000 Hi woltx, Thanks for the response. > Using all inputs, it becomes possible to use SP addresses in coinjoins as= long as all participants agree. > More information: > https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/c43b79517e7cb701ebf77eec6dbb46b8#vari= ant-using-all-inputs Using new addresses and SP address would be same in my opinion in coinjoin. > I think Andrew Poelstra is referring to a multi-party scheme. > This is not the case with the Silent Payments scheme, which only relies o= n transaction data, which is publicly available on the blockchain. Sounds good. > This warning was suggested by Aur=C3=A8le Oul=C3=A8s in https://github.co= m/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24897#issuecomment-1276160738 and the reason was a d= iscussion in PR about users thinking that each address would come from a di= fferent key and not the same key. It makes sense although could be rephrased. /dev/fd0 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, October 23rd, 2022 at 12:30 PM, woltx wro= te: > Hi /dev/fd0 >=20 > I haven't accessed ML for a while. >=20 > 1) All inputs being used sounds good although I do not understand how it = would benefit coinjoin. >=20 > Using all inputs, it becomes possible to use SP addresses in coinjoins as= long as all participants agree. > More information: > https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/c43b79517e7cb701ebf77eec6dbb46b8#vari= ant-using-all-inputs >=20 > 2) Not sure about the concerns expressed by Andrew Poelstra in the pull r= equest related to rogue-key attacks. >=20 > I think Andrew Poelstra is referring to a multi-party scheme. > This is not the case with the Silent Payments scheme, which only relies o= n transaction data, which is publicly available on the blockchain. >=20 > 3) I could not understand the warning in the output for `getsilentaddress= ` RPC when used with a label. >=20 > This warning was suggested by Aur=C3=A8le Oul=C3=A8s in https://github.co= m/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24897#issuecomment-1276160738 and the reason was a d= iscussion in PR about users thinking that each address would come from a di= fferent key and not the same key. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >=20 >=20 > ------- Original Message ------- > On Wednesday, October 12th, 2022 at 6:04 AM, alicexbt alicexbt@protonmail= .com wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > > Hi woltx, > >=20 > > Thanks for working on silent payments improving it in each version. > >=20 > > 1) All inputs being used sounds good although I do not understand how i= t would benefit coinjoin. > > 2) New RPC command name is better. > >=20 > > > I opened a new PR (#1143) to add a function to convert from x-only to= compressed public key with even y. > >=20 > > Not sure about the concerns expressed by Andrew Poelstra in the pull re= quest related to rogue-key attacks. > >=20 > > > Tutorial updated: https://gist.github.com/w0xlt/c81277ae8677b6c0d3dd0= 73893210875 > > > "warnings": "This address is not a new identity. It is a re-use of an= existing identity with a different label." > >=20 > > I could not understand the warning in the output for `getsilentaddress`= RPC when used with a label. > >=20 > > /dev/fd0 > >=20 > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > >=20 > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Tuesday, October 11th, 2022 at 12:32 PM, woltx via bitcoin-dev bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > >=20 > > > Silent Payment v4 (coinjoin support added) > > > Changes: > > >=20 > > > . Silent payments now use all inputs to create transactions. Previous= ly, they only used the first input. This change increases privacy and makes= silent payments compatible with coinjoin. > > >=20 > > > . `getspaddress` RPC renamed to `getsilentaddress` for clarity > > >=20 > > > . Added support for silent payment in PSBT via `walletcreatefundedpsb= t` RPC. > > >=20 > > > . Added a new index scheme (which stores the sum of input public keys= for each transaction). The previous index `bitcoin/signet/indexes/silentpa= ymentindex` should be removed as it is no longer compatible with this new v= ersion. > > >=20 > > > For reviewers: > > >=20 > > > Now, silent payments use the scheme `hash(i1*X + i2*X + i3*X + ...)*G= + X =3D=3D hash(x*(I1+I2+I3+...))*G + X`, as described here: https://gist.= github.com/RubenSomsen/c43b79517e7cb701ebf77eec6dbb46b8#variant-using-all-i= nputs > > >=20 > > > As inputs can be Taproot, this introduced a new issue as `bitcoin-cor= e/secp256k1` does not support x-only public key sum (perhaps due to missing= prefix byte). > > >=20 > > > I opened a new PR (#1143) to add a function to convert from x-only to= compressed public key with even y. This is the solution being used by the = current silent payment implementation. > > >=20 > > > Tutorial updated: https://gist.github.com/w0xlt/c81277ae8677b6c0d3dd0= 73893210875