public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering in transactions
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:25:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJN5wHVSK-oW+zVZmEMfyFkd+GUHRhFHEjEmKrdvqas3LzY0zw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k2vhfnx9.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2589 bytes --]

FWIW, The Open Assets colored coin protocol (CoinPrism) places special
significance on the zeroth input and the position of the OP_RETURN colored
coin marker output to distinguish colored coin issuance outputs from
transfer outputs. Reordering the inputs or the outputs breaks the colored
coin representation.

Recommending sorting of the inputs and outputs as a best practice is fine
(and better than random, IMO), but not as part of IsStandard() or consensus
rules.  There are cases where the order of the inputs and outputs is
significant.

-Danny

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> Title: Canonical Input and Output Ordering
> Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Discussions-To: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Created: 2015-06-06
>
> Abstract
>
> This BIP provides a canonical ordering of inputs and outputs when
> creating transactions.
>
> Motivation
>
> Most bitcoin wallet implementations randomize the outputs of
> transactions they create to avoid trivial linkage analysis (especially
> change outputs), however implementations have made mistakes in this area
> in the past.
>
> Using a canonical ordering has the same effect, but is simpler, more
> obvious if incorrect, and can eventually be enforced by IsStandard() and
> even a soft-fork to enforce it.
>
> Specification
>
> Inputs should be ordered like so:
>         index (lower value first)
>         txid (little endian order, lower byte first)
>
> Outputs should be ordered like so:
>         amount (lower value first)
>         script (starting from first byte, lower byte first, shorter wins)
>
> Rationale
>
> Any single wallet is already free to implement this, but if other
> wallets do not it would reduce privacy by making those transactions
> stand out.  Thus a BIP is appropriate, especially if this were to
> become an IsStandard() rule once widely adopted.
>
> Because integers are fast to compare, they're sorted first, before the
> lexographical ordering.
>
> The other input fields do not influence the sort order, as any valid
> transactions cannot have two inputs with the same index and txid.
>
> Reference Implementation
>
> https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin/tree/bip-in-out-ordering
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3512 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-06-08 21:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-06  4:42 [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering in transactions Rusty Russell
2015-06-06  4:46 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-06  6:44   ` Rusty Russell
2015-06-06  8:24   ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-06  9:45     ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-08 21:25 ` Danny Thorpe [this message]
2015-06-08 21:36   ` Peter Todd
2015-06-14 23:04   ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-14 23:02 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-15  2:29   ` Rusty Russell
2015-06-15  2:33     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-15  2:47       ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-15 21:01         ` Rusty Russell
2015-06-16  7:10           ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-16  8:06             ` Rusty Russell
     [not found]               ` <CABm2gDpkwHvrsB8Dh-hsO6H9trcweEX9XGB5Jh5KLPsPY5Z1Sw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-06-21  7:27                 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: " Jorge Timón
2015-06-15  4:01   ` [Bitcoin-development] " Kristov Atlas
2015-06-24 22:09     ` [bitcoin-dev] " Kristov Atlas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAJN5wHVSK-oW+zVZmEMfyFkd+GUHRhFHEjEmKrdvqas3LzY0zw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=danny.thorpe@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox