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 4A835EE2 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:56:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com (mail-wr0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916375B3 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f169.google.com with SMTP id f11so13348450wre.4 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:56:43 -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=qbE0oPRUWwu583WupSfda/kUh/CWMUCtEzjjL7x6rPc=; b=XR7iO2ROnlk/1KRyIQGCtndd0aSCwDOn71KksrdwFhFBaM5lqNE84AN4xY81NDOfLR 0TOtWTgiTCn1rxnpkhELBe/MPGkOhiUFMMjo79FJh2R5U/vu5eETaVLHbOEz164KMhiJ YA/rZ51W//zDXdc+lw95SgcifI2TsRBZQlg+fwAgVfyAGuUc7T7tMkv1L915D58mkX6c vToCeuXdipXkR7nwIbMnIvducIAV+oPxNU3hRQZHyqUdR2wa9QUeC4NMTY7v4xhkC6ic OJsTxklDWjKVEXHJZUIJxA7lp2Xkd0aUCB+412+UMdi3QJpvLGJbqoJNH6bsDNPx/CJk VV3Q== 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=qbE0oPRUWwu583WupSfda/kUh/CWMUCtEzjjL7x6rPc=; b=o6r7RAI4EQdhHKV7U5jyoRmrgxh0Gd/3/jVr+3dA1cbDkphTJpG6o/OP06pnF7Zzi7 3BOhJEMsML8NK0otQA23wTBEhStNGVe+XFLPt43YwEi77K0N7Zc8MWq3oyhJJGBSyaK0 gRlhs6yZmOtngba3trP8v1VaIeOgTJZa5Wg40MWRcMt5zYHviocXGCmU5vnRuiFEVGbO g0TnM1BchDbWHQ0JG1IcXzIGjjZ3C1GclQog9IE0CQpiYydCj7DURUM2fIZ2LsT9ZZOK nxQjOk3pxTpJiLWXXaQLhl2VsmhowUyVdBL7LuktITVQwaRhMO0Ufh3ClnrU2tDmmuKJ BXdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytctGMTD9gBfCJ1oPeIBxVsC4KBwjX09dFxOcrDItikesdLL0ThP 05J78l+RSfxBLrGYeOZx9rxgDyRxxunZHCVUC9L4AQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouCQzs2rxOOWspLmQOqFPiVwb/QY5BveJvJJ73H9mGkdkQfPpUsdoNk+hMrWKhcEdAIZM5Fc0EdKpBksPJcdb8= X-Received: by 10.223.130.15 with SMTP id 15mr7477646wrb.94.1516305402187; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:56:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.146.67 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.146.67 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:56:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: CryptAxe Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:56:41 -0800 Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b429ade7c020563125cd1" 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:11:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ScriptPubkey consensus translation 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: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:56:44 -0000 --001a114b429ade7c020563125cd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Technically the change would be an improvement. People should be allowed to opt-in to systems and big changes like that though, not have developers change what their outputs mean or open them up to new security risks on their behalf. On Jan 18, 2018 11:30 AM, "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > A common question when discussing newer more efficient pubkey types-- > like signature aggregation or even just segwit-- is "will this thing > make the spending of already existing outputs more efficient", which > unfortunately gets an answer of No because the redemption instructions > for existing outputs have already been set, and don't incorporate > these new features. > > This is good news in that no one ends up being forced to expose their > own funds to new cryptosystems whos security they may not trust. When > sigagg is deployed, for example, any cryptographic risk in it is borne > by people who opted into using it. > > Lets imagine though that segwit-with-sigagg has been long deployed, > widely used, and is more or less universally accepted as at least as > good as an old P2PKH. > > In that case, it might be plausible to include in a hardfork a > consensus rule that lets someone spend scriptPubkey's matching > specific templates as though they were an alternative template. So > then an idiomatic P2PKH or perhaps even a P2SH-multisig could be spent > as though it used the analogous p2w-sigagg script. > > The main limitation is that there is some risk of breaking the > security assumptions of some complicated external protocol e.g. that > assumed that having a schnorr oracle for a key wouldn't let you spend > coins connected to that key. This seems like a pretty contrived > concern to me however, and it's one that can largely be addressed by > ample communication in advance. (E.g. discouraging the creation of > excessively fragile things like that, and finding out if any exist so > they can be worked around). > > Am I missing any other arguments? > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a114b429ade7c020563125cd1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
= Technically the change would be an improvement. People should be allowed to opt-in to systems and big ch= anges like that though, not have developers change what their outputs mean = or open them up to new security risks on their behalf.=C2=A0

On Jan 18, 20= 18 11:30 AM, "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org> wrote:
A common question when discussing newer more efficient pubkey types--
like signature aggregation or even just segwit-- is "will this thing make the spending of already existing outputs more efficient", which unfortunately gets an answer of No because the redemption instructions
for existing outputs have already been set, and don't incorporate
these new features.

This is good news in that no one ends up being forced to expose their
own funds to new cryptosystems whos security they may not trust.=C2=A0 When=
sigagg is deployed, for example, any cryptographic risk in it is borne
by people who opted into using it.

Lets imagine though that segwit-with-sigagg has been long deployed,
widely used, and is more or less universally accepted as at least as
good as an old P2PKH.

In that case, it might be plausible to include in a hardfork a
consensus rule that lets someone spend scriptPubkey's matching
specific templates as though they were an alternative template.=C2=A0 So then an idiomatic P2PKH or perhaps even a P2SH-multisig could be spent
as though it used the analogous p2w-sigagg script.

The main limitation is that there is some risk of breaking the
security assumptions of some complicated external protocol e.g. that
assumed that having a schnorr oracle for a key wouldn't let you spend coins connected to that key.=C2=A0 This seems like a pretty contrived
concern to me however, and it's one that can largely be addressed by ample communication in advance.=C2=A0 (E.g. discouraging the creation of excessively fragile things like that, and finding out if any exist so
they can be worked around).

Am I missing any other arguments?
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a114b429ade7c020563125cd1--