From: Bram Cohen <bram@chia•net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trusted merkle tree depth for safe tx inclusion proofs without a soft fork
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:15:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHUJnBB7UL3mH6SixP_M4yooMVP3DgZa+5hiQOmF=AiqfdpfOg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180607171311.6qdjohfuuy3ufriv@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3650 bytes --]
Are you proposing a soft fork to include the number of transactions in a
block in the block headers to compensate for the broken Merkle format? That
sounds like a good idea.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It's well known that the Bitcoin merkle tree algorithm fails to distinguish
> between inner nodes and 64 byte transactions, as both txs and inner nodes
> are
> hashed the same way. This potentially poses a problem for tx inclusion
> proofs,
> as a miner could (with ~60 bits of brute forcing) create a transaction that
> committed to a transaction that was not in fact in the blockchain.
>
> Since odd-numbered inner/leaf nodes are concatenated with themselves and
> hashed
> twice, the depth of all leaves (txs) in the tree is fixed.
>
> It occured to me that if the depth of the merkle tree is known, this
> vulnerability can be trivially avoided by simply comparing the length of
> the
> merkle path to that known depth. For pruned nodes, if the depth is saved
> prior
> to pruning the block contents itself, this would allow for completely safe
> verification of tx inclusion proofs, without a soft-fork; storing this
> data in
> the block header database would be a simple thing to do.
>
> Lite client verification without a trusted source of known-valid headers is
> dangerous anyway, so this protection makes for a fairly simple addition to
> any
> lite client protocol.
>
>
> # Brute Force Cost Assuming a Valid Tx
>
> Consider the following 64 byte transaction:
>
> tx = CTransaction([CTxIn(COutPoint(b'\xaa'*32,0xbbbbbbbb),
> nSequence=0xcccccccc)],[CTxOut(2**44-1,CScript([b'\
> xdd\xdd\xdd']))],nLockTime=2**31-1)
>
> If we serialize it, the last 32 bytes are:
>
> aaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbb 00 cccccccc 01 ffffffffff0f0000 04 03dddddd
> ffffff7f
> ↳prevhash↲ ↳ n ↲ ↳ seq ↲ ↳ nValue ↲ ↳ pubk ↲ ↳lockt
> ↲
> ↳ sig_len ↳num_txouts ↳scriptPubKey_len
>
> Of those fields, we have free choice of the following bits:
>
> prevhash: 40 - prev tx fully brute-forcable, as tx can be created to match
> prev_n: 16 - can create a tx with up to about 2^16 outputs
> seq: 32 - fully brute-forcable in nVersion=1 txs
> nValue: 44 - assuming attacker has access to 175,921 BTC, worth ~1.3
> billion right now
> pubk: 32 - fully brute-forcable if willing to lose BTC spent; all
> scriptPubKeys are valid
> nLockTime: 31 - valid time-based nLockTime
> Total: 195 bits free choice → 61 bits need to be brute-forced
>
> Additionally, this can be improved slightly by a few more bits by checking
> for
> valid scriptSig/scriptPubKey combinations other than a zero-length
> scriptSig;
> the attacker can also avoid creating an unspendable output this way, and
> recover their funds by spending it in the same block with a third
> transaction.
> An obvious implementation making use of this would be to check that the
> high
> bits of prevout.n are zero first, prior to doing more costly checks.
>
> Finally, if inflation is not controlled - and thus nValue can be set
> freely -
> note how the brute force is trivial. There may very well exist
> crypto-currencies
> for which this brute-force is much easier than it is on Bitcoin!
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4515 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-07 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-07 17:13 Peter Todd
2018-06-07 21:15 ` Bram Cohen [this message]
2018-06-07 22:20 ` Peter Todd
2018-06-09 3:29 ` Bram Cohen
2018-06-09 11:03 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 12:21 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 12:24 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 12:45 ` Peter Todd
2018-06-09 12:51 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 13:02 ` Peter Todd
2018-06-09 12:50 ` 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='CAHUJnBB7UL3mH6SixP_M4yooMVP3DgZa+5hiQOmF=AiqfdpfOg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=bram@chia$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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