From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E5EC0051 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE88C220A9 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:17:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A7Gabx4ruwch for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:17:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.137]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 867DB2010F for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:17:07 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1597922235; bh=NWB2CVwSCThRdTgP7FOahc+MKClKEVQc4pB+jZXlC4k=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nLp3b+jo0gUiPLikL8MV4E8HFs6FpQxrLCt6DouSw/al9cef0fPZyK+5DQt8FqKsO ZIJJP1utTfbtmFHGW3nVqlg0Jqc4YscTLwFx/wr4o0yfiAoGiZTbJJJJCerfx99O8p CMliRQuNxIR2S7o4chPEbJtA7R3EDIE9Rvmtagkw= To: Chris Belcher , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <813e51a1-4252-08c0-d42d-5cef32f684bc@riseup.net> References: <813e51a1-4252-08c0-d42d-5cef32f684bc@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Detailed protocol design for routed multi-transaction CoinSwap 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, 20 Aug 2020 11:17:23 -0000 Good morning Chris, Great to see this! Mostly minor comments. > > =3D=3D Direct connections to Alice =3D=3D=3D > > Only Alice, the taker, knows the entire route, Bob and Charlie just know > their previous and next transactions. Bob and Charlie do not have direct > connections with each other, only with Alice. > > Diagram of Tor connections: > > Bob Charlie > | / > | / > | / > Alice > > When Bob and Charlie communicate, they are actually sending and > receiving messages via Alice who relays them to Charlie or Bob. This > helps hide whether the previous or next counterparty in a CoinSwap route > is a maker or taker. > > This doesn't have security issues even in the final steps where private > keys are handed over, because those private keys are always for 2-of-2 > multisig and so on their own are never enough to steal money. This has a massive advantage over CoinJoin. In CoinJoin, since all participants sign a single transaction, every partic= ipant knows the total number of participants. Thus, in CoinJoin, it is fairly useless to have just one taker and one make= r, the maker knows exactly which output belongs to the taker. Even if all communications were done via the single paying taker, the maker= (s) are shown the final transaction and thus can easily know how many parti= cipants there are (by counting the number of equal-valued outputs). With CoinSwap, in principle no maker has to know how many other makers are = in the swap. Thus it would still be useful to make a single-maker CoinSwap, as that woul= d be difficult, for the maker, to diferentiate from a multi-maker CoinSwap. There are still a few potential leaks though: * If paying through a CoinSwap, the cheapest option for the taker would be = to send out a single large UTXO (single-output txes) to the first maker, an= d then demand the final payment and any change as two separate swaps from t= he final maker. * Intermediate makers are likely to not have exact amounts, thus is unlik= ely to create a single-output tx when forwarding. * Thus, the first maker could identify the taker. * The makers can try timing the communications lag with the taker. The general assumption would be that more makers =3D=3D more delay in tak= er responses. > > =3D=3D=3D Miner fees =3D=3D=3D > > Makers have no incentive to pay any miner fees. They only do > transactions which earn them an income and are willing to wait a very > long time for that to happen. By contrast takers want to create > transactions far more urgently. In JoinMarket we coded a protocol where > the maker could contribute to miner fees, but the market price offered > of that trended towards zero. So the reality is that takers will pay all > the miner fees. Also because makers don't know the taker's time > preference they don't know how much they should pay in miner fees. > > The taker will have to set limits on how large the maker's transactions > are, otherwise makers could abuse this by having the taker consolidate > maker's UTXOs for free. Why not have the taker pay for the *first* maker-spent UTXO and have additi= onal maker-spent UTXOs paid for by the maker? i.e. the taker indicates "swap me 1 BTC in 3 bags of 0.3, 0.3, and 0.4 BTC"= , and pays for one UTXO spent for each "bag" (thus pays for 3 UTXOs). Disagreements on feerate can be resolved by having the taker set the feerat= e, i.e. "the customer is always right". Thus if the maker *has to* spend two UTXOs to make up the 0.4 BTC bag, it p= ays for the mining fees for that extra UTXO. The maker can always reject the swap attempt if it *has to* spend multiple = UTXOs and would lose money doing so if the taker demands a too-high feerate= . > =3D=3D Contract transaction definitions =3D=3D > > Contract transactions are those which may spend from the 2-of-2 multisig > outputs, they transfer the coins into a contract where the coins can be > spent either by waiting for a timeout or providing a hash preimage > value. Ideally contract transactions will never be broadcast but their > existence keeps all parties honest. > > M~ is miner fees, which we treat as a random variable, and ultimately > set by whichever pre-signed RBF tx get mined. When we talk about the > contract tx, we actually mean perhaps 20-30 transactions which only > differ by the miner fee and have RBF enabled, so they can be broadcasted > in sequence to get the contract transaction mined regardless of the > demand for block space. The highest-fee version could have, in addition, CPFP-anchor outputs, like = those being proposed in Lightning, so even if onchain fees rise above the l= argest fee reservation, it is possible to add even more fees. Or not. Hmm. Another thought: later you describe that miner fees are paid by Alice by fo= rwarding those fees as well, how does that work when there are multiple ver= sions of the contract transaction? > > (Alice+timelock_A OR Bob+hash) =3D Is an output which can be spent > either with Alice's private key > after waiting for a relative > timelock_A, or by Bob's private key by > revealing a hash preimage value The rationale for relative timelocks is that it makes private key turnover = slightly more useable by ensuring that, after private key turnover, it is p= ossible to wait indefinitely to spend the UTXO it received. This is in contrast with absolute timelocks, where after private key turnov= er, it is required to spend received UTXO before the absolute timeout. The dangers are: * Until it receives the private key, if either of the incoming or outgoing = contract transactions are confirmed, every swap participant (taker or maker= ) should also broadcast the other contract transaction, and resolve by onch= ain transactions (with loss of privacy). * After receiving the private key, if the incoming contract transaction is = confirmed, it should spend the resulting contract output. * It is possible to steal from a participant if that participant goes offli= ne longer than the timeout. This may imply that there may have to be some minimum timeout that makers= indicate in their advertisements. * The taker can detect if the first maker is offline, then if it is offli= ne, try a contract transaction broadcast, if it confirms, the taker can wai= t for the timeout; if it times out, the taker can clawback the transaction. * This appears to be riskless for the taker. * Against a similar attack, Lightning requires channel reserves, which = means the first hop never gains control of the entire value, which is a bas= ic requirement for private key turnover. * On the other hand, the taker has the largest timeout before it can claw= back the funds, so it would wait for a long time, and at any time in betwee= n the first maker can come online and spend using the hashlock branch. * But the taker can just try on the hope it works; it has nothing to lo= se. * This attack seems to be possible only for the taker to mount. Other makers on the route cannot know who the other makers are, without= cooperation of the taker, who is the only one who knows all the makers. * On the other hand, the last maker in the route has an outgoing HTLC w= ith the smallest timelock, so it is the least-risk and therefore a maker wh= o notices its outgoing HTLC has a low timeout might want to just do this an= yway even if it is unsure if the taker is offline. * Participants might want to spend from the UTXO to a new address after p= rivate key turnover anyway. Makers could spend using a low-fee RBF-enabled tx, and when another req= uest comes in for another swap, try to build a new funding tx with a higher= -fee bump. > A possible attack by a malicious Alice is that she chooses M1 to be very > low (e.g. 1 sat/vbyte) and sets M2 and M3 to be very high (e.g. 1000 > sat/vb) and then intentionally aborts, forcing the makers to lose much > more money in miner fees than the attacker. The attack can be used to > waste away Bob's and Charlie's coins on miner fees at little cost to the > malicious taker Alice. So to defend against this attack Bob and Charlie > must refuse to sign a contract transaction if the corresponding funding > transaction pays miner fees greater than Alice's funding transaction. Sorry, I do not follow the logic for this...? > The timelocks are staggered so that if Alice uses the preimage to take > coins then the right people will also learn the preimage and have enough > time to be able to get their coins back too. Alice starts with knowledge > of the hash preimage so she must have a longest timelock. More precisely: * The HTLC outgoing from Alice has the longest timelock. * The HTLC incoming into Alice has the shortest timelock. For the makers, they only need to ensure that the incoming timelock is much= larger than the outgoing timelock. > > =3D=3D EC tweak to reduce one round trip =3D=3D > > When two parties are agreeing on a 2-of-2 multisig address, they need to > agree on their public keys. We can avoid one round trip by using the EC > tweak trick. > > When Alice, the taker, downloads the entire offer book for the liquidity > market, the offers will also contain a EC public key. Alice can tweak > this to generate a brand new public key for which the maker knows the > private key. This public key will be one of the keys in the 2-of-2 > multisig. This feature removes one round trip from the protocol. > > q =3D EC privkey generated by maker > Q =3D q.G =3D EC pubkey published by maker > > p =3D nonce generated by taker > P =3D p.G =3D nonce point calculated by taker > > R =3D Q + P =3D pubkey used in bitcoin transaction > =3D (q + p).G Whoa whoa whoa whoa. All this time I was thinking you were going to use 2p-ECDSA for all 2-of-2s= . In which case, the private key generated by the taker would be sufficient t= weak to blind this. In 2p-ECDSA, for two participants M =3D m * G; T =3D t * G, the total key i= s m * t * G =3D m * T =3D t * M. Are you going to use `2 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG` instead of 2p-ECDSA? Note that you cannot usefully hide among Lightning mutual closes, because o= f the reserve; Lightning mutual closes are very very likely to be spent in = a 1-input (that spends from a 2-of-2 P2WSH), 2-output (that pays to two P2W= PKHs) tx. > > =3D=3D Protocol =3D=3D > ---8<------ The protocol looks correct to me. LOL. Give me a little more time to check it in detail hahaha. > =3D=3D=3D=3D Retaliation as DOS-resistance =3D=3D=3D=3D > > In some situations (e.g. step 8.) if one maker in the coinswap route = is > the victim of a DOS they will retaliate by DOSing the previous maker = in > the route. This may seem unnecessary and unfair (after all why waste > even more time and block space) but is actually the best way to resis= t > DOS because it produces a concrete cost every time a DOS happens. I agree. > > =3D=3D Analysis of deviations =3D=3D > > This section discusses what happens if one party deviates from the > protocol by doing something else, for example broadcasting a htlc > contract tx when they shouldnt have. > > The party name refers to what that party does, followed by other part= y's > reactions to it. > e.g. Party1: does a thing, Party2/Party3: does a thing in reaction > > If multiple deviations are possible in a step then they are numbered > e.g. A1 A2 A2 etc > > 0-2. Alice/Bob/Charlie: nothing else is possible except following the > protocol or aborting > > 8. Alice: broadcasts one or more of the A htlc txes. Bob/Charlie/Dennis: > do nothing, they havent lost any time or money. > 4-6. Bob/Charlie: nothing else is possible except following the proto= col > or aborting. > > 9. Bob: broadcasts one or more of the B htlc txes, Alice: broadcasts all > her own A htlc txes and waits for the timeout to get her money back. > Charlie: do nothing > > 10. Charlie: nothing else is possible except following the protocol or > aborting. > > 11. Alice: broadcasts one or more of the A htlc txes. Bob: broadcasts al= l > his own A htlc txes and waits for the timeout. > A. same as 8. > B. Charlie: broadcasts one or more of the C htlc txes, Alice/Bob: > broadcasts all their own htlc txes and waits for the timeout to get > their money back. > C-E1. Alice: broadcasts all of C htlc txes and uses her knowledge of = the > preimage hash to take the money immediately. Charlie: broadcasts > all of B htlc txes and reading the hash value from the blockchain, > uses it to take the money from B htlc immediately. Bob: broadcasts > all of A htlc txes, and reading hash from the blockchain, uses it > to take the money from A htlc immediately. > C-E2. Alice: broadcast her own A htlc txes, and after a timeout take = the > money. Bob: broadcast his own B htlc txes and after the timeout > take their money. Charlie: broadcast his own C htlc txes and after > the timeout take their money. > F1. Bob: broadcast one or more of A htcl txes and use the hash preima= ge > to get the money immediately. He already knows both privkeys of the > multisig so this is pointless and just damages privacy and wastes > miner fees. Alice: blacklist Bob's fidelity bond. > F2. Bob: broadcast one or more of the C htlc txes. Charlie: use preim= age > to get his money immediately. Bob's actions were pointless. Alice: > cant tell whether Bob or Charlie actually broadcasted, so blacklist > both fidelity bonds. > G1. Charlie: broadcast one or more of B htcl txes and use the hash > preimage to get the money immediately. He already knows both > privkeys of the multisig so this is pointless and just damages > privacy and wastes miner fees. Alice: cant tell whether Bob or > Charlie actually broadcasted, so blacklist both fidelity bonds. > G2. Charlie: broadcast one or more of the A htlc txes. Alice: broadca= st > the remaining A htlc txes and use preimage to get her money > immediately. Charlies's actions were pointless. Alice: blacklist > Charlie's fidelity bond. > > The multisig outputs of the funding transactions can stay unspent > indefinitely. However the parties must always be watching the network > and ready to respond with their own sweep using a preimage. This is > because the other party still possesses a fully-signed contract tx. T= he > parties respond in the same way as in steps C-E1, F2 and G2. Alice's > reaction of blacklisting both fidelity bonds might not be the right w= ay, > because one maker could use it to get another one blacklisted (as wel= l > as themselves). Looks OK, though note that a participant might try to do so (as pointed out= above) in the hope that the next participant is offline. Thank you very much for your writeup! Regards, ZmnSCPxj