Re: [bitcoindev] Signing a Bitcoin Transaction with Lamport Signatures (no changes needed)

[Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 08:56:21AM -1000, David A. Harding wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 06:48, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> > [...] post-Taproot script can verify a
> > trace of any program execution, as long as the individual elements it is
> > operating on fit into 4-byte CScriptNums. You can therefore implement
> > SHA2, ECDSA, etc., and reconstruct the pattern of SIZE elements by
> > feeding in transaction data. Which of course can then be arbitrarily
> > constrained.
> 
> Thanks for your answer!  I think I understand.  However, we don't have ECDSA
> in tapscript; all signatures in tapscript are 64 bytes plus an optional
> sighash byte, so there's no natural variation in signature size.
>

You can implement ECDSA. It will just take a *lot* of opcodes.

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

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/ZjkqIzPSFLc0GJJ1%40camus.

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