From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Malleable booleans
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:45:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQXGkYgxuzDaYUr-p6Z6J0sPBGt-qg4HVMDcs3owf+90w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjbeAaTmEvqrHHU4Mb45VPyRvFxdRzz1S6+-t7ep20ZtQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while working on a BIP62 implementation I discovered yet another type
> of malleability: the interpretation of booleans.
>
> Any byte array with non-zero bytes in it (ignoring the highest bit of
> the last byte, which is the sign bit when interpreting as a number) is
> interpreted as true, anything else as false. Other than numbers,
> they're not even restricted to 4 bytes. Worse, the code for dealing
> with booleans is not very consistent: OP_BOOLAND and OP_BOOLOR first
> interpret their arguments as numbers, and then compare them to 0 to
> turn them into boolean values.
>
> This means that scripts that use booleans as inputs will be inherently
> malleable. Given that that seems actually useful (passing in booleans
> to guide some OP_IF's during execution of several alternatives), I
> would like to change BIP62 to also state that interpreted booleans
> must be of minimal encoded size (in addition to numbers).
>
> Any opinions for or against?
An argument against is that you can currently do something like this:
OP_DUP OP_IF OP_HASH160 PUSH OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_ELSE <stuff>
OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_ENDIF
E.g. if your input is non-zero you're giving a hash, if it's zero
you're skipping that and running another branch.
Of course you could just encode your script another way... but by that
same logic you can 1 OP_QUALVERIFY to bool-ize any input in the true
path. The inconsistency in handling makes it more likely that script
authors will screw up with bad (for them) consequences, however.
[I just asked pieter out of band to clarify if he means "minimal
encoded size", or must be 0 or 1 minimally encoded... as the former
doesn't fix the malleability, but the later is more disruptive]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-14 2:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-14 2:34 Pieter Wuille
2014-10-14 2:45 ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2014-10-14 7:27 ` Thomas Zander
2014-10-14 7:52 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-10-14 8:04 ` Wladimir
2014-10-14 8:09 ` Peter Todd
2014-10-14 18:54 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-10-14 19:45 ` Peter Todd
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=CAAS2fgQXGkYgxuzDaYUr-p6Z6J0sPBGt-qg4HVMDcs3owf+90w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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