Re: [bitcoin-dev] MAST/Schnorr related soft-forks

From: Bram Cohen <bram@chia•net>
To: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream•io>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MAST/Schnorr related soft-forks
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:11:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHUJnBDZW4sgic83E=3CQ78i_50qj9N8pATQwCR5T3p_RkpObg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnPVz+XOq-cQRQuLbCuqn4H28WSMXCK3Rnt8VVivedYCw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12293 bytes --]

I'm not sure about the best way to approach soft-forking (I've opined on it
before, and still find the details mind-numbing) but the end goal seems
fairly clearly to be an all of the above: Have aggregatable public keys
which support simple signatures, taproot with BIP 114 style taproot, and
Graftroot. And while you're at it, nuke OP_IF from orbit and make all the
unused opcodes be return success.

This all in principle could be done in one fell swoop with a single new
script type. That would be a whole lot of stuff to roll out at once, but at
least it wouldn't have so many painstaking intermediate soft forks to
administer.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Thanks for writing this up Anthony.
>
> Do you think that a CHECKSIGFROMSTACK proposal should be included within
> this discussion of signature soft-forks, or do you see it as an unrelated
> issue?
>
> CHECKSIGFROMSTACK enables some forms of (more) efficent MPC (See
> http://people.csail.mit.edu/ranjit/papers/scd.pdf), enables poor-man's
> covenants, and I believe the lightning folks are interested in it as well
> for some constant space storage scheme.
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:10 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello world,
>>
>> After the core dev meetup in March I wrote up some notes of where I
>> think things stand for signing stuff post-Schnorr. It was mostly for my
>> own benefit but maybe it's helpful for others too, so...
>>
>> They're just notes, so may assume a fair bit of background to be able to
>> understand the meaning of the bullet points. In particular, note that I'm
>> using "schnorr" just to describe the signature algorithm, and the terms
>> "key aggregation" to describe turning an n-of-n key multisig setup into
>> a single key setup, and "signature aggregation" to describe combining
>> signatures from many inputs/transactions together: those are often all
>> just called "schnorr signatures" in various places.
>>
>>
>> Anyway! I think it's fair to split the ideas around up as follows:
>>
>> 1) Schnorr CHECKSIG
>>
>>   Benefits:
>>     - opportunity to change signature encoding from DER to save a few
>>       bytes per signature, and have fixed size signatures making tx size
>>       calculations easier
>>
>>     - enables n-of-n multisig key aggregation (a single pubkey and
>>       signature gives n-of-n security; setup non-interactively via muSig,
>>       or semi-interactively via proof of possession of private key;
>>       interactive signature protocol)
>>
>>     - enables m-of-n multisig key aggregation with interactive setup and
>>       interactive signature protocol, and possibly substantial storage
>>       requirements for participating signers
>>
>>     - enables scriptless scripts and discreet log contracts via
>>       key aggregation and interactive
>>
>>     - enables payment decorrelation for lightning
>>
>>     - enables batch validation of signatures, which substantially reduces
>>       computational cost of signature verification, provided a single
>>       "all sigs valid" or "some sig(s) invalid" output (rather than
>>       "sig number 5 is invalid") is sufficient
>>
>>     - better than ecdsa due to reducing signature malleability
>>       (and possibly due to having a security proof that has had more
>>       review?)
>>
>>    Approaches:
>>      - bump segwit version to replace P2WPKH
>>      - replace an existing OP_NOP with OP_CHECKSCHNORRVERIFY
>>      - hardfork to allowing existing addresses to be solved via Schnorr
>> sig
>>        as alternative to ECDSA
>>
>> 2) Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees
>>
>>    Two main benefits for enabling MAST:
>>     - logarithmic scaling for scripts with many alternative paths
>>     - only reveals (approximate) number of alternative execution branches,
>>       not what they may have been
>>
>>    Approaches:
>>     - replace an existing OP_NOP with OP_MERKLE_TREE_VERIFY, and treat an
>>       item remaining on the alt stack at the end of script exeution as a
>>       script and do tail-recursion into it (BIP 116, 117)
>>     - bump the segwit version and introduce a "pay-to-merkelized-script"
>>       address form (BIP 114)
>>
>> 3) Taproot
>>
>>    Requirements:
>>     - only feasible if Schnorr is available (required in order to make the
>>       pubkey spend actually be a multisig spend)
>>     - andytoshi has written up a security proof at
>>       https://github.com/apoelstra/taproot
>>
>>    Benefits:
>>     - combines pay-to-pubkey and pay-to-script in a single address,
>>       improving privacy
>>     - allows choice of whether to use pubkey or script at spend time,
>>       allowing for more efficient spends (via pubkey) without reducing
>>       flexibility (via script)
>>
>>    Approaches:
>>     - bump segwit version and introduce a "pay-to-taproot" address form
>>
>> 4) Graftroot
>>
>>    Requirements:
>>     - only really feasible if Schnorr is implemented first, so that
>>       multiple signers can be required via a single pubkey/signature
>>     - people seem to want a security proof for this; not sure if that's
>>       hard or straightforward
>>
>>    Benefits:
>>     - allows delegation of authorisation to spend an output already
>>       on the blockchain
>>     - constant scaling for scripts with many alternative paths
>>       (better than MAST's logarithmic scaling)
>>     - only reveals the possibility of alternative execution branches,
>>       not what they may have been or if any actually existed
>>
>>    Drawbacks:
>>     - requires signing keys to be online when constructing scripts (cannot
>>       do complicated pay to cold wallet without warming it up)
>>     - requires storing signatures for scripts (if you were able to
>>       reconstruct the sigs, you could just sign the tx directly and
>> wouldn't
>>       use a script)
>>     - cannot prove that alternative methods of spending are not
>>       possible to anyone who doesn't exclusively hold (part of) the
>>       output address private key
>>     - adds an extra signature check on script spends
>>
>>    Approaches:
>>     - bump segwit version and introduce a "pay-to-graftroot" address form
>>
>> 5) Interactive Signature Aggregation
>>
>>    Requirements:
>>     - needs Schnorr
>>
>>    Description:
>>     - allows signers to interactively collaborate when constructing a
>>       transaction to produce a single signature that covers multiple
>>       inputs and/or OP_CHECKSIG invocations that are resolved by Schnorr
>>       signatures
>>
>>    Benefits:
>>     - reduces computational cost of additional signatures (i think?)
>>     - reduces witness storage needed for additional signatures to just the
>>       sighash flag byte (or bytes, if it's expanded)
>>     - transaction batching and coinjoins potentially become cheaper than
>>       independent transactions, indirectly improving on-chain privacy
>>
>>    Drawbacks:
>>     - each soft-fork introduces a checkpoint, such that signatures that
>>       are not validated by versions prior to the soft-fork cannot be
>>       aggregated with signatures that are validated by versions prior to
>>       the soft-fork (see [0] for discussion about avoiding that drawback)
>>
>>    Approaches:
>>     - crypto logic can be implemented either by Bellare-Neven or MuSig
>>     - needs a new p2wpkh output format, so likely warrants a segwit
>>       version bump
>>     - may warrant allowing multiple aggregation buckets
>>     - may warrant peer-to-peer changes and a new per-tx witness
>>
>> 6) Non-interactive half-signature aggregation within transaction
>>
>>    Requirements:
>>      - needs Schnorr
>>      - needs a security proof before deployment
>>
>>    Benefits:
>>      - can halve the size of non-aggregatable signatures in a transaction
>>      - in particular implies the size overhead of a graftroot script
>>        is just 32B, the same as a taproot script
>>
>>    Drawbacks:
>>      - cannot be used with scriptless-script signatures
>>
>>    Approaches:
>>      - ideally best combined with interactive aggregate signatures, as it
>>        has similar implementation requirements
>>
>> 7) New SIGHASH modes
>>
>>    These will also need a new segwit version (for p2pk/p2pkh) and probably
>>    need to be considered at the same time.
>>
>> 8) p2pk versus p2pkh
>>
>>    Whether to stick with a pubkeyhash for the address or just have a
>> pubkey
>>    needs to be decided for any new segwit version.
>>
>> 9) Other new opcodes
>>
>>    Should additional opcodes in new segwit versions be reserved as OP_NOP
>> or
>>    as OP_RETURN_VALID, or something else?
>>
>>    Should any meaningful new opcodes be supported or re-enabled?
>>
>> 10) Hard-fork automatic upgrade of p2pkh to be spendable via segwit
>>
>>    Making existing p2pk or p2pkh outputs spendable via Schnorr with
>>    interactive signature aggregation would likely be a big win for people
>>    with old UTXOs, without any decrease in security, especially if done
>>    a significant time after those features were supported for new outputs.
>>
>> 11) Should addresses be hashes or scripts?
>>
>>    maaku's arguments for general opcodes for MAST make me wonder a bit
>>    if the "p2pkh" approach isn't better than the "p2wpkh" approach; ie
>>    should we have script opcodes as the top level way to write addresses,
>>    rather than picking the "best" form of address everyone should use,
>>    and having people have to opt-out of that. probably already too late
>>    to actually have that debate though.
>>
>> Anyway, I think what that adds up to is:
>>
>>  - Everything other than MAST and maybe some misc new CHECKVERIFY opcodes
>>    really needs to be done via new segwit versions
>>
>>  - We can evaluate MAST in segwit v0 independently -- use the existing
>>    BIPs to deploy MAST for v0; and re-evaluate entirely for v1 and later
>>    segwit versions.
>>
>>  - There is no point deploying any of this for non-segwit scripts
>>
>>  - Having the taproot script be a MAST root probably makes sense. If so,
>>    a separate OP_MERKLE_MEMBERSHIP_CHECK opcode still probably makes
>>    sense at some point.
>>
>> So I think that adds up to:
>>
>>  a) soft-fork for MAST in segwit v0 anytime if there's community/economic
>>     support for it?
>>
>>  b) soft-fork for OP_CHECK_SCHNORR_SIG_VERIFY in segwit v0 anytime
>>
>>  c) soft-fork for segwit v1 providing Schnorr p2pk(h) addresses and
>>     taproot+mast addresses in not too much time
>>
>>  d) soft-fork for segwit v2 introducing further upgrades, particularly
>>     graftroot
>>
>>  e) soft-fork for segwit v2 to support interactive signature aggregation
>>
>>  f) soft-fork for segwit v3 including non-interactive sig aggregation
>>
>> The rationale there is:
>>
>>   (a) and (b) are self-contained and we could do them now. My feeling is
>>   better to skip them and go straight to (c)
>>
>>   (c) is the collection of stuff that would be a huge win, and seems
>>   "easily" technically feasible. signature aggregation seems too
>>   complicated to fit in here, and getting the other stuff done while we
>>   finish thinking about sigagg seems completely worthwhile.
>>
>>   (d) is a followon for (c), in case signature aggregation takes a
>>   *really* long while. It could conceivably be done as a different
>>   variation of segwit v1, really. It might turn out that there's no
>>   urgency for graftroot and it should be delayed until non-interactive
>>   sig aggregation is implementable.
>>
>>   (e) and (f) are separated just because I worry that non-interactive
>>   sig aggregation might not turn out to be possible; doing them as a
>>   single upgrade would be preferrable.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> aj
>>
>> [0] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018
>> -March/015838.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14839 bytes --]