From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1814C000B for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 03:08:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF88060BEA for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 03:08:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=chia.net Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HO1HrP3tsN4X for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 03:08:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083D460BE0 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 03:08:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id o6so1237284ljp.3 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:08:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chia.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jof4IUJCbb4SQ8nc1fu0D+Qodn5ZGoSTZJ3RnXEw5To=; b=r1Oa9/uFJ3Gi1OJO+uspUAf8Xsn+UETn1tcYK6rnR1/UF4rJkKxMyp9VjxUOWAnr3e SyKk1HRQr7tJ3zHhPSDLbUjr7IZ+3h00sfIs4F253555N5shrNc7ptu5M56SBsXbAGsW Eoi3U6USke8ZkC0XUXkuvA/k8AgaqniEFyH6MWJRxMUYnvCGk9HmY4whyzbMKJOC5h3R HVoIEIyegRnaEBS6UEfAh7qzxmPcwOK3DT4GUtISDWffOEDBUk+OUtjiSAVp3o8oWkRp O+UP87Vb5zHsopEIYE6Mab6ss7ljYquxCsCjpkYwzV1hr8KhboC4g+GhcT84C4rhutbH RTQQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jof4IUJCbb4SQ8nc1fu0D+Qodn5ZGoSTZJ3RnXEw5To=; b=zvEsW9Ngdt+K47N3eursB7x6Xt4ozpDVtsSoohg9rHql9IZ//jMuqFhVvamt9qn8wb aL1a+a8+e1/IbgoHdiIY1RyVEWHE4hiKjQDJ7CIGltGE4O4v/y2MSdFjVvgp71FGzTbl EkFa+iHDgOPqmYYcpsevrAiF4TexoXHX+MVfjAhPG/wz/z1Lu+q4PxOFtDEm/lIXx3yr wlP6Lk9X3hyiFVkesag14WKuK5qiuDa5z/yiUMdRIDiBcIHGltGVvpYAol3nznZ+Le0V b9ENpR135Pq+RVRhJjqYWtvHwSh1HyERbNehoTvjcAUTR35QvvHfqVJfrsfZbWklIeAu /PEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531223exqejIN9N4r8sC/k5e1ZgWfwlMmRtwe57QCHvvbqcbjT9+ N45dNKpMbRd+bge1VQ0uvrzEZclrur1bvxVr9kydbQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyB585E66Cnz5FxK9aVUAUOnC68CM+cXjJBtfVGEQWTS5w+Jn1wQgrypJ0+7Dg0OiKQhTQm89u5+547LPj3CGw= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:924d:0:b0:246:370c:5618 with SMTP id v13-20020a2e924d000000b00246370c5618mr12487576ljg.358.1646795281974; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:08:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220308012719.GA6992@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: From: Bram Cohen Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 19:07:51 -0800 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ccd98e05d9c06733" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 13:10:51 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Anthony Towns Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin scripting and lisp 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: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 03:08:08 -0000 --000000000000ccd98e05d9c06733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:06 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote: > > But cross-input signature aggregation is a nice-to-have we want for > Bitcoin, and, to me, cross-input sigagg is not much different from > cross-input puzzle/solution compression. > Cross-input signature aggregation has a lot of headaches unless you're using BLS signatures, in which case you always aggregate everything all the time because it can be done after the fact noninteractively. In that case it makes sense to have a special aggregated signature which always comes with a transaction or block. But it might be a bit much to bundle both lisp and BLS support into one big glop. > > For example you might have multiple HTLCs, with mostly the same code > except for details like who the acceptor and offerrer are, exact hash, and > timelock, and you could claim multiple HTLCs in a single tx and feed the > details separately but the code for the HTLC is common to all of the HTLCs. > You do not even need to come from the same protocol if multiple protocols > use the same code for implementing HTLC. > HTLCs, at least in Chia, have embarrassingly little code in them. Like, so little that there's almost nothing to compress. > This does not apply to current Bitcoin since we no longer accept a SCRIPT > from the spender, we now have a witness stack. > My mental model of Bitcoin is to pretend that segwit was always there and the separation of different sections of data is a semantic quibble. > So this seems to be more like "do not write broken SCRIPTs"? > In general if people footgun that's their own fault. The resistance to covenants and capabilities in the past has largely been around what would happen if you had opt-out covenants which acted as riders and could monkey around in later spends which were none of their business. But if they're fully baked into the scriptpubkey then they're opted into by the recipient and there aren't any weird surprises. --000000000000ccd98e05d9c06733 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:06 PM ZmnSCPxj &= lt;ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com&g= t; wrote:

But cross-input signature aggregation is a nice-to-have we want for Bitcoin= , and, to me, cross-input sigagg is not much different from cross-input puz= zle/solution compression.

Cross-input s= ignature aggregation has a lot of headaches unless you're using BLS sig= natures, in which case you always aggregate everything all the time because= it can be done after the fact noninteractively. In that case it makes sens= e to have a special aggregated signature which always comes with a transact= ion or block. But it might be a bit much to bundle both lisp and BLS suppor= t into one big glop.

=C2=A0

For example you might have multiple HTLCs, with mostly the same code except= for details like who the acceptor and offerrer are, exact hash, and timelo= ck, and you could claim multiple HTLCs in a single tx and feed the details = separately but the code for the HTLC is common to all of the HTLCs.
You do not even need to come from the same protocol if multiple protocols u= se the same code for implementing HTLC.

HTLCs, at least in Chia, have embarrassingly=C2=A0little code in them. Lik= e, so little that there's almost nothing to compress.
=C2=A0<= /div>
This does not apply = to current Bitcoin since we no longer accept a SCRIPT from the spender, we = now have a witness stack.

My mental mod= el of Bitcoin is to pretend that segwit was always there and the separation= of different sections of data is a semantic quibble.
=C2=A0
So this seems to be more= like "do not write broken SCRIPTs"?

In general if people footgun that's their own fault. The resist= ance to covenants and capabilities in the past has largely been around what= would happen if you had opt-out covenants which acted as riders and could = monkey around in later spends which were none of their business. But if the= y're fully baked into the scriptpubkey then they're opted into by t= he recipient and there aren't any weird surprises.
=C2=A0
--000000000000ccd98e05d9c06733--