Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fidelity-bonded ledgers

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:44:58 -0500

Lets suppose we take away everything but the transaction/scripting
system from Bitcoin. What is left is basically a way for to prove that a
set of pubkeys authorized the movement of coins from one place to
another. Of course, such a system is flawed as a currency because of the
double spend problem - specifically the need to know that there exists
global consensus on what particular set of transactions is the accepted
state.

However, in the event that a party commits double-spend fraud, it is
trivial to prove to others that they did so. Thus if a way to punish
that party can be found, we can give them an incentive to behave
honestly.

Consider the following new opcode and scriptPubKey:

    <genesis hash> n <ledger pubkeys> m CHECK_DOUBLE_SPEND_PROOF

spent with the following scriptSig:

    {transaction 1} {transaction 2}

where where both transactions are part of the block chain starting at
the given genesis hash, and whose blocks are signed by n of m ledger
pubkeys; the ledger is the entity entrusted to keep the ledger accurate
and not allow double-spends to occur.

Anyone with proof of a double-spend attempt made in the blockchain
starting at a given genesis hash can collect a reward. In essence, the
txout is the fidelity bond holding the ledger accountable.

Of course, the devil's in the details...

Transactions and blocks
-----------------------

Transactions themselves can follow the Bitcoin system of scripts,
scriptPubKeys, and scriptSigs and re-use the existing validation
machinery.

A so-called block however is reduced to the simpliest possible form:

    <signatures> <block hash> <transaction>

where the signatures are that of the ledger. The block hash is optional
and provides a way to further link a block into some sort of system to
make double-spend fraud detectable. Importantly the Bitcoin validation
machinery itself only needs to know that the double-spend happened at
all, not how it was detected.

Note how had the string manipulation opcodes not been disabled, in
particular SUBSTR, and had CHECKSIG not been designed as a single
opcode, it might have even been possible to create the double-spend
detector using the existing scripting system. Equally with just a set of
ECDSA opcodes one could probably construct a double-spend detector using
non-Bitcoin compatible transactions, but alas, things didn't work out
that way.

Moving funds in and out of fidelity-bonded ledgers
--------------------------------------------------

First the depositor informs the ledger of the amount they wish to
deposit, and one txin that will be used for that deposit.

Nex the ledger first creates a ledger-only transaction with the the
following scriptPubKey:

    <confirmations> <value> <txin hash> <scriptPubKey hash> CHECK_PAYMENT VERIFY <pubkey> CHECKSIG

spendable with the following scriptSig:

    <signature> <transaction> <merkle path to block header>

The CHECK_PAYMENT opcode returns true if provided with a proof that a
transaction with a txout of the correct value and scriptPubKey spending
the given txin exists in the Bitcoin blockchain. The ledger should
ensure that a different scriptSig is created for every deposit. The txin
is provided to allow the ledger to use the same scriptPubKey for all
deposits and thus make external audits easier. (note that an UTXO merkle
sum proof system is most likely to index by scriptPubKey)

The ledger gives the depositor the fully signed transaction, and the
depositor makes it valid by broadcasting that transaction and getting it
confirmed in the block chain.

Withdrawls from the ledger to the blockchain proper can happen the same
way, but this time it's the ledger that provides the transaction, and
the transaction owner that spends the transaction to an address of the
ledger's choosing.

Detecting double-spends
-----------------------

From the point of view of the Bitcoin validation machinery, double-spend
detection is undefined. Thus multiple systems are possible without
changing the validation rules.

One simple method would be for the ledger to maintain a publicly
accessible website, in particular publically accessible over Tor.
Transactions would be incorporated into a single log, and clients would
expect to be able to get copies of that log at any time anonymously. If
their transaction did not appear in the log, they could immediately
prove the double spend. (going as far back as the genesis block) The
optional block hash signed by every transaction would be incorporated
into the audit logs.

Equally trusted computing technologies can also be used instead of, or
in conjunction with, the ledger audit logs.

Ensuring the bond can-not be collected by the ledger
----------------------------------------------------

The simplistic scriptPubKey presented in the introduction allows for the
ledger to create their own fraud proof and run with the funds. What we
actually need is a way to constrain the destination of those spend
funds. Consider the following scriptPubKey:

    {bond ops omitted} <txouts hash> GET_TXOUTS HASH160 EQUAL

GET_TXOUTS would put a serialized version of each scriptPubKey, value,
and so on on the stack. (ideally using the existing CHECKSIG machinery;
CHECKSIG decomposed) Thus the txouts of any transaction allowed to spend
the scriptPubKey are constrained.

The scriptPubKey of the allowed transaction output can include a
mechanism such as the following:

    n GET_BLOCKS_SINCE_TXIN LESSTHAN

Essentially the number of blocks that have been confirmed since the transaction input was
confirmed in the chain are put on the stack, and the scriptPubKey is
only spendable if that number is sufficiently large. Essentially it's
the same underlying idea as publish-commit fidelity bond sacrifices, but
done with explicit scripting support.

As an aside, all these GET_FOO opcodes would use a lot of opcode space,
thus they should all be combined into a single GET_INFO opcode, which
would take a single argument specifying what information should be
placed onto the stack.

Chaum Token Support
-------------------

Auditing chuam token creating and redemption is made difficult by the
fact that the two acts are separated from each other. However, while it
isn't possible to audit any particular token issue/redemption, it is
possible to audit the sum of all tokens issued.

Specifically now every transaction involving tokens contains a number V,
which represents the total value of all tokens of that denomination. A
token creation transaction would look like the following:

    <ledger signature> <prev hash> V+1 <inputs> <blinded token>

with the rule that if two transactions exist with the same prev hash,
both creating a token, fraud has occured. Equally if the total token
value is not incremented, fraud has also occured. Similarly token
redemption can look like the following:

    <ledger signature> <token signature> <prev hash> V-1 <unblinded token> <outputs>

Note that here tokens themselves are pubkeys, which authorize their own
redemption.

Token to token transactions do not change V, but they still require
signatures, and thus still can be used as fraud proofs.

Of course the ledger can still run with all the funds deposited, but if
clients never deposit more funds than the fidelity bond is worth, the
ledger is still unable to profit from fraud as any client can show that
either their redemption request has not been honored, or that the value
of outstanding tokens does not match up.

Forcing redemptions
-------------------

There needs to be some way of forcing the ledger to redeem a withdrawl
request, on pain of losing their fidelity bond. This can be done by
allowing the creation of a special unspent txout, which can only be
spent by the creation of the requested txout, thus transfering the funds
to the rightful owner. Clients would scan the UTXO set to ensure that
no outstanding UTXO's of that special form exist before depositing funds
with the ledger. This solution could also be combined with time-lock
mechanisms that return funds to their owners, perhaps combined with some
sort of replacement mechanism.

Further work needs to be done here.

Summary
-------

Bitcoin provides an excellent transferable proof of work that can be
used to make certain actions expensive, including fraud. By the addition
of a relatively small number of opcodes to the existing scripting
language, opcodes that can be used for other purposes, we can create a
ledger built on top of Bitcoin whose honesty and performance are
incentivised by the prospect of losing something of value.

Extending the scripting language
--------------------------------

I'm not sure the following has been proposed before; my apologies if it
has.

Invalid opcodes do not make a transaction invalid if they are part of an
unexecuted IF/ELSE/ENDIF block. Previously it has been proposed to
carefully use the ten NOP opcodes as a way to extend the scripting
language - remember that an extension is a soft fork only if existing
clients consider the transaction valid - however we can instead redefine
just one NOP opcode to get access to all of the invalid opcodes.
Specifically consider the following scriptPubKey:

    <version> CHECK_SCRIPT_VERSION NOTIF <ops> ENDIF

The CHECK_SCRIPT_VERSION, NOP10, would essentially put the supported
script version on the stack, followed by the LESSTHANOREQUAL opcode.
Thus if the script version is supported, zero is placed on the stack,
and the NOTIF/ENDIF block is executed. Otherwise non-zero is left on the
stack, and the block is not executed, resulting in the script succeeding
unconditionally. Equally for non-supporting miners, the NOP10 does
nothing, non-zero is left on the stack, and the script succeeds.

Alternatively the comparison could be done as an XOR, and the "version"
actually being a set of capabilities. This has the advantage that
different versions could use the same invalid opcodes for different
purposes. (the context would remain until the end of the ENDIF block)
However I'm not sure that allowing a full-on "flag" system is worth the
complexity, and in any case if versions are assigned sequentially
essentially the same idea can be done later anyway.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org