From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2435CC0029 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8AF60BAD for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:36:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org EC8AF60BAD Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=seSPHc0W X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 VW4Fb6Wt5XV9 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:36:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 93F6860BAB Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93F6860BAB for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9827bd8e0afso197581766b.1 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 02:36:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686821816; x=1689413816; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sgjDY86AqC1nn+a1WwYP71J0Sscqrwk0dDdfnDlS5BY=; b=seSPHc0WYrMipfBrgPmhwFB4As19aBcbKUwDbOmKFwJkEpiY+rhqYBqZXaKgUME0Yj +u43KgTZvelpcKTG+Ost2j7PvUgv6xyLAaRQwpZEWoX41F/wwXW9KlMMEbI3IAj83o91 NoNoEyUseY02szoy3XoxPB17DzV9oBNf2y8NWidZOr/RqWIb6DWhHAa8LsoszYbo6bMF Eu01rU0l3ulTWUjkv+4BNQ1IAJA5eTa/ulWjzO2p9ApucaFeEfupeBvP94sPO4jI3fUY oX+OxBj0dNvcOH+BwcbfuQcTp1JDeWTJtwBbBFr3plbT63msru51tF5U8GHaO4Z9zckq P9gQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686821816; x=1689413816; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=sgjDY86AqC1nn+a1WwYP71J0Sscqrwk0dDdfnDlS5BY=; b=kIUPUHqy7OpXiHYSQ97swkTw7kdZOiO8n9uUAv/QmHJkZ/cRhAAzVAjY9WITfyzp4/ PHxQ8L0W5u/3LBwn9iFb8CdrEmjMvTh3XrlawNzUkbP7Ms3pWZ+0EOsMherT5zZ5xyNz 3N1rSKuN5mDYtTb6wFCM2vuoM8/t3OEv2GRyFBwSpWfrn8azNeLULc1nsGqjjZq88LWK DNm2V/GyVeb1iuFfAP2ujbZ2bdzw+ilpd6Pk02cpCL3uX78QV7/Za/k3NbNTTRYwDCAT ruCXCYx1PhSyWNb6eSqZaZacr9cRzW2Fv3QWaEgpbrY7qCLYi/a51bpiuQ81Ukm1Xrjx btng== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzQc7dxGsaF7zr/VINH/3J7Ke4U1+4RHarRB40s3UeCXee9gEOo qF6yUJ0Xu9RO1do/3yFXdMk+eFIbUK1DgNRRzDA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5pZIlV7o4xLc5aff0KwV5BAyTOv183HYtL9MoibRRDwdKzNTnGqUSpidUIt/R2+NXmDrmB/N4KkMA63Q3knZQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9b8d:b0:973:df9c:b1aa with SMTP id dd13-20020a1709069b8d00b00973df9cb1aamr20009434ejc.71.1686821816403; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <29ff546a6007cec1a0f85b91541f8e4d@dtrt.org> In-Reply-To: From: Joost Jager Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:36:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: Greg Sanders Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a902e05fe27cfef" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:40:58 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Standardisation of an unstructured taproot annex 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: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:37:00 -0000 --0000000000002a902e05fe27cfef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Greg, Getting back to this: Another solution could be to make annex usage "opt-in" > by requiring all inputs to commit to an annex to be relay-standard. In > this case, you've opted into a possible > vector, but at least current usage patterns wouldn't be unduly affected. > Ignoring the argument that policy may provide a false sense of security, I think this is an interesting idea. Opt-in would enable convenants through presigned txes with atomic on-chain signature backup, without needing to worry about non-annex multi-party protocols (coinjoin and dual funded lightning mentioned previously) that may suffer from annex inflation or the last signer presenting an unexpected annex. The downside is just that extra empty annex byte per input, if there are other inputs involved. To me that would be a reasonable trade-off. Would it then still be necessary to restrict the annex to a maximum size? Perhaps not opting into annex for multi-party protocols is sufficient. Or otherwise, #24007 may be helpful. It is hard to pick a constant usually. Joost. --0000000000002a902e05fe27cfef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Greg,

Getting back to thi= s:

A= nother solution could be to make annex usage "opt-in"
b= y requiring all inputs to commit to an annex to be relay-standard. In this = case, you've opted into a possible
vector, but at least curre= nt usage patterns wouldn't be unduly affected.=C2=A0
<= /blockquote>
=C2=A0
Ignoring the argument that policy may pro= vide a false sense of security, I think this is an interesting idea. Opt-in= would enable convenants through presigned txes with atomic on-chain signat= ure backup, without needing to worry about non-annex multi-party protocols = (coinjoin and dual funded lightning mentioned previously) that may suffer f= rom annex inflation or the last signer presenting an unexpected annex. The = downside is just that extra empty annex byte per input, if there are other = inputs involved. To me that would be a reasonable trade-off.

=
Would it then still be necessary to restrict the annex to a maxi= mum size? Perhaps not opting into annex for multi-party protocols is suffic= ient. Or otherwise, #24007 may be helpful. It is hard to pick a constant us= ually.

Joost.
--0000000000002a902e05fe27cfef--