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 A9D2DC8D for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:09:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E175B764 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:09:04 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1545077342; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; b=mPTfn5fgX4L0BaV9bXGKF+P9Lc0oCSmv7xRF46Ukm9lG67oelVCO9RSsdgANHParteKoYdpnmCot/WJkp1tra8G6mdXQg6nCrwe083ikoNzV8DqqWM25jEpY5oh0ldFf23xexWz7WDfqP+1kdIDsOHBL4yd7Sa4mHSDKPlmaRgQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; t=1545077342; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results; bh=XfG7u9SZfjVoab3v7j4uKUPHcgU0txFL/1XJC5go1/8=; b=YuRWZ/T+Yd0C7o/UHf2Q+cHPcdjW+sA1awhH8EyNPYGs3QMyl7hf9teKOF9OkOiwTEg4BUR4juWoUxXl8XXH4gk9Eb48JNw+CldeVFfg2wLwRJFHuzJYsUgihduq3M1Vdo6Qgr4d60DgbnAOV/1/2b41BvCPiAY7RF0bl9CDQjI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; dkim=pass header.i=xbt.hk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jl2012@xbt.hk; dmarc=pass header.from= header.from= Received: from [10.8.0.105] (n218103234118.netvigator.com [218.103.234.118]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 154507733902958.098872757710524; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:08:59 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\)) From: Johnson Lau In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 04:08:55 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk> To: Ruben Somsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39) X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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, 18 Dec 2018 02:18:08 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging 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: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:09:05 -0000 > On 17 Dec 2018, at 11:48 PM, Ruben Somsen wrote: >=20 > Hi Johnson, >=20 > The design considerations here seem similar to the ML discussion of > whether Graftroot should be optional [1]. Yes, but the =E2=80=9Ctagging=E2=80=9D emphasises more on the payer=E2=80=99= s side: if the payer cannot guarantee that the payee would never reuse = the key, the payer could avoid any NOINPUT-related trouble by tagging = properly. >=20 >> While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other = proposals require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of = tagging? >=20 > As far as I can tell it should be compatible with Statechains [2], > since it pretty much mirrors Eltoo in setup. >=20 > My understanding is somewhat lacking, so perhaps I am missing the > mark, but it is not completely clear to me how this affects > fungibility if taproot gets added and the setup and trigger tx for > Eltoo get combined into a single transaction. Would the NOINPUT > spending condition be hidden inside the taproot commitment? For the design considerations I mentioned above, the tags must be = explicit and configurable by the payer. So it couldn=E2=80=99t be hidden = in taproot. If you don=E2=80=99t care about fungibility, you can always tag your = setup output, and makes it ready for NOINPUT spending. Every update will = need 2 signatures: a NOINPUT to spend the setup output or an earlier = update output, and a NOINPUT to settle the latest update output. If you care about fungibility, you can=E2=80=99t tag your setup output. = Every update will need 3 signatures: a SINGLEINPUT (aka ANYONECANPAY) to = spend the setup output, a NOINPUT to spend an earlier update output, and = a NOINPUT to settle the latest update output. (Actually, as soon as you made the first update tx with SINGLEINPUT, you = don=E2=80=99t strictly need to make any SINGLEINPUT signatures in the = later updates again, as the first update tx (or any update with a = SINGLEINPUT signature) could be effectively the trigger tx. While it = makes the settlement more expensive, it also means accidentally missing = a SINGLEINPUT signature will not lead to any fund loss. So security-wise = it=E2=80=99s same as the always-tagging scenario.) The most interesting observation is: you never have the need to use = NOINPUT on an already confirmed UTXO, since nothing about a confirmed = UTXO is mutable. And every smart contract must anchor to a confirmed = UTXO, or the whole contract is double-spendable. So the ability to = NOINPUT-spend a setup output should not be strictly needed. In some (but = not all) case it might make the protocol simpler, though. So the philosophy behind output tagging is =E2=80=9Cavoid NOINPUT at all = cost, until it is truly unavoidable" >=20 > Cheers, > Ruben Somsen >=20 > [1] = https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-May/016006.ht= ml > [2] = https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9nhjea/eli51525faq_for_statechai= ns_offchain_transfer_of/ >=20 > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:20 PM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >>=20 >> NOINPUT is very powerful, but the tradeoff is the risks of signature = replay. While the key holders are expected not to reuse key pair, little = could be done to stop payers to reuse an address. Unfortunately, = key-pair reuse has been a social and technical norm since the creation = of Bitcoin (the first tx made in block 170 reused the previous public = key). I don=E2=80=99t see any hope to change this norm any time soon, if = possible at all. >>=20 >> As the people who are designing the layer-1 protocol, we could always = blame the payer and/or payee for their stupidity, just like those people = laughed at victims of Ethereum dumb contracts (DAO, Parity multisig, = etc). The existing bitcoin script language is so restrictive. It = disallows many useful smart contracts, but at the same time prevented = many dumb contracts. After all, =E2=80=9Csmart=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cdumb=E2= =80=9D are non-technical judgement. The DAO contract has always been = faithfully executed. It=E2=80=99s dumb only for those invested in the = project. For me, it was just a comedy show. >>=20 >> So NOINPUT brings us more smart contract capacity, and at the same = time we are one step closer to dumb contracts. The target is to find a = design that exactly enables the smart contracts we want, while = minimising the risks of misuse. >>=20 >> The risk I am trying to mitigate is a payer mistakenly pay to a = previous address with the exactly same amount, and the previous UTXO has = been spent using NOINPUT. Accidental double payment is not uncommon. = Even if the payee was honest and willing to refund, the money might have = been spent with a replayed NOINPUT signature. Once people lost a = significant amount of money this way, payers (mostly exchanges) may = refuse to send money to anything other than P2PKH, native-P2WPKH and = native-P2WSH (as the only 3 types without possibility of NOINPUT) >>=20 >> The proposed solution is that an output must be =E2=80=9Ctagged=E2=80=9D= for it to be spendable with NOINPUT, and the =E2=80=9Ctag=E2=80=9D must = be made explicitly by the payer. There are 2 possible ways to do the = tagging: >>=20 >> 1. A certain bit in the tx version must be set >> 2. A certain bit in the scriptPubKey must be set >>=20 >> I will analyse the pros and cons later. >>=20 >> Using eltoo as example. The setup utxo is a simple 2-of-2 multisig, = and should not be tagged. This makes it indistinguishable from normal = 1-of-1 utxo. The trigger tx, which spends the setup utxo, should be = tagged, so the update txs could spend the trigger utxo with NOINPUT. = Similarly, all update txs should be tagged, so they could be spent by = other update txs and settlement tx with NOINPUT. As the final = destination, there is no need to tag in the settlement tx. >>=20 >> In payer=E2=80=99s perspective, tagging means =E2=80=9CI believe this = address is for one-time-use only=E2=80=9D Since we can=E2=80=99t control = how other people manage their addresses, we should never do tagging when = paying to other people. >>=20 >> I mentioned 2 ways of tagging, and they have pros and cons. First of = all, tagging in either way should not complicate the eltoo protocol in = anyway, nor bring extra block space overhead. >>=20 >> A clear advantage of tagging with scriptPubKey is we could tag on a = per-output basis. However, scriptPubKey tagging is only possible with = native-segwit, not P2SH. That means we have to disallow NOINPUT in = P2SH-segwit (Otherwise, *all* P2SH addresses would become =E2=80=9Crisky=E2= =80=9D for payers) This should be ok for eltoo, since it has no reason = to use P2SH-segwit in intermediate txs, which is more expensive. >>=20 >> Another problem with scriptPubKey tagging is all the existing bech32 = implementations will not understand the special tag, and will pay to a = tagged address as usual. An upgrade would be needed for them to refuse = sending to tagged addresses by default. >>=20 >> On the other hand, tagging with tx version will also protect = P2SH-segwit, and all existing wallets are protected by default. However, = it is somewhat a layer violation and you could only tag all or none = output in the same tx. Also, as Bitcoin Core has just removed the tx = version from the UTXO database, adding it back could be a little bit = annoying, but doable. >>=20 >> There is an extension to the version tagging, which could make = NOINPUT even safer. In addition to tagging requirement, NOINPUT will = also sign the version of the previous tx. If the wallet always uses a = randomised tx version, it makes accidental replay very unlikely. = However, that will burn a few more bits in the tx version field. >>=20 >> While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other = proposals require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of = tagging? >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev