From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 13:09:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vac3fzje.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qFwv4IxuQlev23nK6hMyrDz231PXkGTBGZvaa3VAQs-32VcpjR18bsKQEioxOuauD9tDCUap2DlBGbr9QD0OC9-w_55tbo25P1BjK75Xj30=@protonmail.com>
ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> writes:
> It seems to me, that `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` may help make some protocol
> integrate better with existing wallets.
Depends on which end of a transaction the existing wallet is: existing
wallets will refuse to sign a transaction with an unknown sighash flag,
but if the wallet is creating the output that'll later be spent using a
`SIGHASH_NOINPUT` transaction it won't (and shouldn't) care.
> I remember vaguely that `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` was also mentioned before in
> LN discussions, when the issue of transaction malleation was
> considered (before SegWit, being totally uncontroversial, was
> massively adopted). The sketch below, I believe, is somewhat
> consistent with how it could have been used in funding a channel.
I consider `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` to be a poor-man's malleability fix, since
it comes with some baggage. Without trying to undermine my own proposal,
but address reuse in combination with binding through script, can lead
to very unexpected results. You need to be very careful about where you
allow rebinding, hence the warnings in the proposal.
> Consider a CoinSwap protocol. Each side writes a transaction that
> pays out to an ordinary 2-of-2 multisig address. But before each side
> writes and signs that transaction, it first demands a timelocked
> backout transaction to let them recover their own funds in case it
> falls through (more generally, every offchain protocol has a similar
> setup stage where some way to back out is signed before all parties
> enter into the contract).
>
> ...
>
> With `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, we can indeed implement such a walletless
> CoinSwap (or other protocol) software. We only need to provide the
> public keys that will be used in the initial 2-of-2, and the other
> side can create a signature with `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` flag.
I was wondering whether we could actually skip one communication round
w.r.t. the previously described CoinSwap protocol, but it turns out we
need to at least exchange public keys before actually moving any
funds. Would have been nice to do spontaneous CoinSwaps.
> The setup of the CoinSwap then goes this way. The swapping nodes
> exchange public keys (two for each side in this case), they agree on
> who gets to move first in the swap and who generates the preimage, and
> then they agree on what the backout transactions look like (in
> particular, they agree on the address the backout transactions spend)
> and create signatures, with `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`. In particular, the
> signatures do not commit to the txid of the transaction that they
> authorize spending. The CoinSwap sofwares then turn around to their
> users and say "okay, send to this address", the users initiate the
> swap using their normal wallet software, the CoinSwap software
> monitors only the address it asked the user to use, then when it
> appears onchain (the CoinSwap software does not even need to track the
> mempool) it continues with the HTLC offers and preimage exchanges
> until the protocol completes.
>
> In a world where walletless CoinSwap exists, consider this:
>
> 1. A user buys Bitcoin from an exchange. The exchange operates a
> wallet which they credit when the user buys Bitcoin.
> 2. The user starts a CoinSwap, giving the destination address from
> their cold-storage wallet.
> 3. The CoinSwap tells the user an address to send to. The user
> withdraws money from the exchange using that address as destination (1
> transaction)
> 4. The user waits for the CoinSwap to finish, which causes the funds
> to appear in their cold-storage wallet (1 transaction).
>
> If CoinSwap implementations all needed their own wallets, then instead:
>
> 1. A user buys Bitcoin from an exchange.
> 2. The user withdraws the funds from the exchange to a CoinSwap
> implementation wallet (1 transaction).
> 3. The user performs a CoinSwap which goes back to the CoinSwap
> implementation wallet (2 transactions).
> 4. The user sends from the CoinSwap wallet to their cold storage (1
> transaction). (granted, the CoinSwap implementation could offer a
> feature that immediately transfers the swapped funds to some other
> wallet, but we still cannot get around the transfer from the exchange
> to the CoinSwap wallet)
>
> A drawback of course, is that `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` is an unusual flag to
> use; it immediately paints the user as using some special protocol.
> So much for `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` CoinSwap.
By providing a new use-case you are contributing to the obfuscation of
this technique. The more normal the use of `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` becomes the
less an observer can learn from it being used. In combination with MAST,
Taproot or Graftroot we can further hide the details of the executed
protocol :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-04 11:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-30 16:29 Christian Decker
2018-04-30 18:25 ` Dario Sneidermanis
2018-05-01 16:58 ` Russell O'Connor
2018-05-01 17:32 ` Christian Decker
2018-05-04 9:15 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-04 11:09 ` Christian Decker [this message]
2018-05-04 14:25 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-09-26 9:36 ` Jonas Nick
2018-09-26 19:45 ` Johnson Lau
2018-09-26 20:40 ` Jonas Nick
2018-05-07 19:40 ` Christian Decker
2018-05-07 20:51 ` Bram Cohen
2018-07-03 6:58 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " ZmnSCPxj
2018-07-03 11:54 ` William Casarin
2018-05-08 14:40 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Anthony Towns
2018-05-09 23:01 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-09 23:04 ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-14 9:23 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " Anthony Towns
2018-05-15 14:28 ` Christian Decker
2018-05-07 23:47 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-10 14:12 ` Christian Decker
2018-07-02 18:11 ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-07-03 4:56 ` Rusty Russell
2018-07-03 5:21 ` Peter Todd
2018-07-03 23:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-07-09 9:41 ` Peter Todd
2018-07-03 12:05 ` Christian Decker
2018-07-03 12:13 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " Luke Dashjr
2018-07-04 18:08 ` fred savage
2018-07-05 8:18 ` vv01f
[not found] ` <CAK_c0Xo0G9-YiOGZK_8WsYNkzjQRaH+u7XOUAozKosggXeXTNg@mail.gmail.com>
2018-07-11 7:43 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-07-13 0:04 ` Rusty Russell
2018-07-13 9:50 ` fred savage
2018-07-13 11:07 ` Christian Decker
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=87vac3fzje.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=decker.christian@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ZmnSCPxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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