From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin vaults with anti-theft recovery/clawback mechanisms
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:09:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABaSBawwSEa_dDLEXhWncsqKmsM+rdT2Npo334LEZPvcMzrzFQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190812150110.yf76pq47e5oszx62@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4272 bytes --]
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:01 AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> The key difference being it's not important that this be a *public*
> notification: that the public can see just happens to be an (unfortunate)
> implementation detail. For example, you could imagine a system where the
> "prepare to spend" tx is indistinguishable from any other transaction.
>
True, I did not intend for everyone to know the meaning of the observed
transaction. It turns out to not be too useful to the scheme anyway, unless
you're interested in protecting against an adversary dumb enough to tell
you he has stolen your key before spending your coins. To reiterate my
other follow-up email, the best you can do (... or the best I can do right
now) is limit losses to k% where k is selected by the user, e.g. 1 input
100 outputs each with succesively increasing timeouts allowing the rotten
non-rotated(pre-inserted) key to spend, and instant spending by a recovery
flow. Once the attacker steals any one of the k% outputs, you know to not
let the outputs timeout to that key in the future. Unfortunately, without
an opcode-style covenant, the only way to know if a stale hot key is stolen
is to observe an unexpected spend or, if you're lucky, observe an
unexpected signature otherwise unassociated with a transaction.
> > * Nuclear abort key: Also unnecessary. This is a key for which only a
> single
>
Obviously normally to provably destroy coins you'd spend to an OP_RETURN
> output, or if miner censorship was an issue, a pay-to-script-hash of an
> OP_RETURN <nonce> script.
>
Oh, right. Well, that works.
> > Delete the key (for pre-signed transactions)
> > ============================================
> >
> > The delete-the-key trick is simple. The idea is to pre-sign at least one
> > transaction and then delete the private key, thus locking in that course
> of
> > action.
> >
> > Unfortunately, delete-the-key doesn't really work for multisig scenarios
> > because nobody would trust that anyone else in the scheme has actually
> deleted
> > the secret. If they haven't deleted the secret, then they have full
> unilateral
> > control to sign anything in that branch of the transaction tree. The
> only time
> > that delete-the-key might be appropriate would be where the user who
> deletes
> > the key and controls the key during the setup process is also the sole
> > beneficiary of the entire setup with the multisig participants.
> >
> > Alternative fee rates are easier to deal with using delete-the-key,
> compared to
> > a technique where the private key never existed which can only be used
> to sign
> > one fee rate per public key, requiring an entirely new vault subtree for
> each
> > alternative fee rate. With delete-the-key, the alternative fee rates are
> signed
> > with the private key before the private key is deleted.
>
> I think this could use a bit more analysis here: why can't delete the
> *keys*
> work, with each party deleting a separate private key that's used in an
> m-of-n
> fashion? So long as at least n-m+1 parties actually deleted their keys
> IIUC it
> should be secure.
>
I was thinking about another construction where you pick a key as a group
(separate from the multisig setup) and sign with that. But in practice, as
you have pointed out, you would do the delete-the-key trick on the multisig
construction itself with each party contributing their own pubkey,
requiring 1/n honest deletes.
> > Multisig gated by ECDSA pubkey recovery for provably-unknown keys
> > =================================================================
> >
> > A group can participate in a multisig scheme with provably-unknown ECDSA
> keys.
> > Instead of deleting the key, the idea is to agree on a blockheight and
> then
> > select the blockhash (or some function of the chosen blockhash like
> > H(H(H(blockhash)))) as the signature. Next, the group agrees on a
> transaction
> > and they recover the public key from the signature using ECDSA pubkey
> recovery.
>
> Could you explain in more detail why you're deriving this from a blockhash?
>
Well you need to pick an entropy source, and I wouldn't want to tell people
to just trust the first party to tell you a good sequence of bytes.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5612 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-13 2:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-07 13:48 Bryan Bishop
2019-08-07 20:32 ` Bryan Bishop
2019-08-07 21:19 ` Dustin Dettmer
2019-08-08 2:09 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2019-08-08 3:03 ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-08-08 0:27 ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-08-08 1:16 ` Bryan Bishop
2019-08-12 14:40 ` [bitcoin-dev] Single-use-Seal Implementation Peter Todd
2019-08-12 15:01 ` [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin vaults with anti-theft recovery/clawback mechanisms Peter Todd
2019-08-13 2:09 ` Bryan Bishop [this message]
2019-08-13 14:15 ` Peter Todd
2019-08-13 2:44 ` Praveen Baratam
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=CABaSBawwSEa_dDLEXhWncsqKmsM+rdT2Npo334LEZPvcMzrzFQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=kanzure@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)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