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 8378B94B for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 23:46:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D82B01AE for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 23:46:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id r63so31539380oia.6 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:46:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tSKzMkjjOg6HSFlKcf+Duv68Fg9JYS/SWJcnvU8F4FU=; b=EuOyL1ztiJIG5HhyRKQBcIe7b//4lM/Jb7+IGBsmuScnL6Q4L+feaUZyT9O/Topvhx iKRDv6aH2CR5GfPspaXpXl3JNnzwYYHoWzRDuUGqdQvL9i//El7qAYzi1gkVXomU3uGF J0tjDmtHANP2F0fWRonWfLDPZQCgfuQ7yuCzAYdgiKnUHaMaEoiwb4w6uvDaZvLF4ZSy zy66hdYV9sLSCUnWW46wg+3jNE++sQL3249dWOCN3smYyGm491kXIdS9CcAJ6kmCqala +W7Y47Ut/JOm5t985IpATQs5Da487gkk7+OQXtEpUTb4wfn7Gi+2hviFHwHIQADI3YdG YJQg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=tSKzMkjjOg6HSFlKcf+Duv68Fg9JYS/SWJcnvU8F4FU=; b=h2aq1qkMujJcsvYlzWHMhC5aPasZ1pfzl+gso5If9XKBuahYQH6UE547AfU/VuwIr8 NGZbp/yUJ6Q5EUx1gj2ctKarjdjP74BeA7EhFIaPm/V/aAi5bjxO4uJrby/TPhl2txbF khKjWgOrHImx+bydtegZ41EYnhyDFOpPna9TRyrH2euF2pL05Vktsdc2JcSY04547Xe6 DEZKuP4Jt/ZDbT08hjoIfGGZYRUmJg9dEG63hLUNZ3a0lWR3OZhf1CSYRifm8P/5+Y+4 BLVLHuWzQ7QGAlgx7fqzkNMU1+cXcSXPHqiuuBxmpNUsKy4LClE57d3/kDjUkj139dcF WHMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLh2prgN9DCACzwtp1mE/G5KkNuZ4E8a7daDFRwl2+T1Tn34C9o m/+qf8S1oNcCwpGETFKysmc85i7Xn0kjBzYW00rKPphU X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos6nqx/Rk2pJK/J+XuChGhCs8Skx1w+HZ+uUMJmvqG0syOPMbHzZBT/GG1pi9oWvNVns0v6KzmnTJx+xiT7hWs= X-Received: by 10.202.212.83 with SMTP id l80mr29271191oig.85.1514764018111; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:46:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.68.67 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:46:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bryan Bishop Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:46:57 -0600 Message-ID: To: CANNON , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d210637d99e0561ab7bc1" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Single signature for all transactions in a block? 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: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 23:46:59 -0000 --001a113d210637d99e0561ab7bc1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 5:39 PM, CANNON via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I had a question relating to scaling and privacy enhancements. > I believe that segwit combined with aggregated signatures > and coinjoin can potentially achieve such. The idea is to > use aggregated signatures in conjunction with coinjoin. So > that all inputs of a coinjoin transaction would have a single > signature vastly decreasing size while having privacy at the > same time. If majority of transactions in a block did this I > assume that significant more transactions could be fit into a > block? Here are some resources to read regarding signature aggregation and scalability: https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2017-09-06-signature-aggregation/ https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-2017-08-28-deep-dive-bitcoin-core-v0.15/#signature-aggregation https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/schnorr-signatures/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/23/schnorr-signature-aggregation/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377298.0 https://bitcoincore.org/logs/2016-05-zurich-meeting-notes.html https://github.com/sipa/secp256k1/blob/968e2f415a5e764d159ee03e95815ea11460854e/src/modules/schnorr/schnorr.md https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/dan-boneh/ - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --001a113d210637d99e0561ab7bc1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Dec 31, 2017 at 5:39 PM, CANNON via bitcoin-dev <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I had a question relating to scaling and privacy enhancements.
I believe that segwit combined with aggregated signatures
and coinjoin can potentially achieve such. The idea is to
use aggregated signatures in conjunction with coinjoin. So
that all inputs of a coinjoin transaction would have a single
signature vastly decreasing size while having privacy at the
same time. If majority of transactions in a block did this I
assume that significant more transactions could be fit into a
block?

Here are some resources to read regarding signa= ture aggregation and scalability:

- B= ryan
http://heybryan.= org/
1 512 203 0507
--001a113d210637d99e0561ab7bc1--