Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unenforceable fee obligations in multiparty protocols with Taproot inputs

[Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1193 bytes --]


Some people highlighted some minor problems with my last email:

On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:46:22PM +0000, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
> [1] https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/
> [2] In Taproot, if you want to prevent signatures migrating to another
>     branch or within a branch, you can use the CODESEPARATOR opcode
>     which was redisegned in Taproot for exactly this purpose... we
>     really did about witness malleation in its design!

In Taproot the tapleaf hash is always covered by the signature (though
not in some ANYONECANPAY proposals) so you can never migrate signatures
between tapbranches.

I had thought this was the case, but then I re-confused myself by
reading BIP 341 .... which has much of the sighash specified, but not
all of it! The tapleaf hash is added in BIP 342.

> 
>     If you want to prevent signatures from moving around *within* a
>     branch,
>

And this sentence I just meant to delete :)


-- 
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]