Hi James,

> I don't really see the vaults case as any different from other
> sufficiently involved uses of bitcoin script - I don't remember anyone
> raising these concerns for lightning scripts or DLCs or tapscript use,
> any of which could be catastrophic if wallet implementations are not
> tested properly.

I think on the lightning side there were enough concerns w.r.t bugs
affecting the toolchains in their infancy phases to motivate developers to
bound max channel value to 2^24 for a while [0]

[0] https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/590

> By comparison, decreasing amount per vault step and one CSV use
> seems pretty simple. It's certainly easy to test (as the repo shows),
> and really the only parameter the user has is how many blocks to delay
> to the `tohot_tx` and perhaps fee-rate. Not too hard to test
> comprehensively as far as I can tell.

As of today you won't be able to test against bitcoin core that a CSV'ed
transaction is valid for propagation across the network because your
mempool is going to reject it as non-final [1]

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21413

Verifying that your whole set of off-chain covenanted transactions is
propagating well at different feerate levels, and there is no surface
offered to a malicious vault co-owner to pin them can turn quickly as a
real challenge, I believe.

> I think the main concern I have with any hashchain-based vault design
> is the immutability of the flow paths once the funds are locked to the
> root vault UTXO.

> Isn't this kind of inherent to the idea of covenants? You're
> precommitting to a spend path. You can put in as many "escape-hatch"
> conditions as you want (e.g. Jeremy makes the good point I should
> include an immediate-to-cold step that is sibling to the unvaulting),
> but fundamentally if you're doing covenants, you're precommitting to a
> flow of funds. Otherwise what's the point?

Yeah, I agree here that's the idea of covenants to commit to a flow of
funds. However, I think leveraging hashchain covenants in terms of  vault
design comes at the price to make transaction generation errors or key
endpoint compromises hardly irrevocable.

I would say you can achieve the same end goal of precommiting to a flow of
funds with "pre-signed" transactions (and actually that's what we do for
lightning) though while still keeping the upgrade emergency option open. Of
course, you re-introduce more assumptions on the devices where the upgrade
keys are laying.

I believe both designs are viable, it's more a matter of explaining
security and reliability trade-offs to the vaults users. They might be even
complimentary as answering different classes of self-custody needs. I'm
just worried as protocol devs, we have a good understanding of those
trade-offs to convey them well to the vaults users and have them make a
well-informed decision.

> Who's saying to trust hardware? Your cold key in the vault structure
> could have been generated by performing SHA rounds with the
> pebbles in your neighbor's zen garden.
>
> Keeping an actively used multi-sig setup secure certainly isn't free or
> easy. Multi-sig ceremonies (which of course can be used in this scheme)
> can be cumbersome to coordinate.
>
> If there's a known scheme that doesn't require covenants, but has
> similar usage and security characteristics, I'd love
> to know it! But being able to lock coins up for an arbitrary amount of
> time and then have advance notice of an attempted spend only seems
> possible with some kind of covenant technique.

Well, if by covenants you include pre-signed transactions vaults designs,
no sadly I don't know schemes offering the same usage and security
characteristics...

> That said, I think this security advantage is only relevant in the
> context of recursive design, where the partial unvault sends back the
> remaining funds to vault UTXO (not the design proposed here).

> I'm not really sure why this would be. Yeah, it would be cool to be able
> to partially unvault arbitrary amounts or something, but that seems like
> another order of complexity. Personally, I'd be happy to "tranche up"
> funds I'd like to store into a collection of single-hop vaults vs.
> the techniques available to us today.

Hmmm if you would like to be able to partially unvault arbitrary amounts,
while still precommitting to the flow of funds, you might need a sighash
flag extension like SIGHASH_ANYAMOUNT ? (my 2 sats, I don't have a design)

Yes, "tranche up" funds where the remainder is sent back to a vault UTXO
sounds to me belonging to the recursive class of design, and yeah I agree
that might be one of the most interesting features of vaults.

> Pretty straightforward to send such a process (whether it's a program or
> a collection of humans) an authenticated signal that says "hey, expect a
> withdrawal." This kind of alert allows for cross-referencing the
> activity and seems a lot better than nothing!

Yep, a nice improvement. And now you enter into a new wormhole of providing
your process with keys to authenticate the signals and how those
non-necessarily bitcoin locking-UTXO keys can be compromised or even how
the alert mechanism can be abused. We know, security is a never over game :D

> With any use of bitcoin you're going to have critical data that needs to
> be maintained (your privkeys at a minimum), so the game is always
> reducing surface area. If the presigned-txn vault design
> appealed to you as a user, this seems like a strict improvement.

I agree here, the critical data surface sounds to be better with
hashchain-based vaults designs.

> I'm not sure who's proposing that counterparties who don't trust each
> other make a vault together. I'm thinking of individual users and
> custodians, each of which functions as a single trusted entity.

If you have a set of custodians, even if they belong to the same
administrative entity, one of them might be compromised or bribed and leak
the anchor output key to an attacker, therefore preventing the remaining
custodians from using the `tocold_tx` ability as expected.

I'm not sure if thinking of the custodians as a single trusted entity is a
hard enough assumption for high-stake vaults designs..

> Perhaps your point here is that if I'm a custodian operating a vault and
> someone unexpectedly hacks the fee keys that encumber all of my anchor
> outputs, they can possibly pin my attempted response to the unvault
> transaction - and that's true. But that doesn't seem like a fault unique
> to this scheme, and points to the need for better fee-bumping needs a la
> SIGHASH_GROUP or transaction sponsors.[0]

Yes agree here.

> I would say space efficiency is of secondary concern

> If every major custodian ends up implementing some type of vault scheme
> (not out of the question), this might be a lot of space! However I'm all
> for facilitating the flow of bitcoin from major custodians to miners...
> but it seems like we could do that more cleanly with a block size
> reduction ;). (JUST KIDDING!)

Haha, designing _inefficient_ off-chain contracts for high buying power
users to have them pay better the miners in a post-block subsidy world.
Sounds smart, well done :)

Antoine

Le mar. 8 mars 2022 à 14:46, James O'Beirne <james.obeirne@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hey Antoine,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at the repo.
>
> > I believe it's reasonable to expect bugs to slip in affecting the
> > output amount or relative-timelock setting correctness
>
> I don't really see the vaults case as any different from other
> sufficiently involved uses of bitcoin script - I don't remember anyone
> raising these concerns for lightning scripts or DLCs or tapscript use,
> any of which could be catastrophic if wallet implementations are not
> tested properly.
>
> By comparison, decreasing amount per vault step and one CSV use
> seems pretty simple. It's certainly easy to test (as the repo shows),
> and really the only parameter the user has is how many blocks to delay
> to the `tohot_tx` and perhaps fee-rate. Not too hard to test
> comprehensively as far as I can tell.
>
>
> > I think the main concern I have with any hashchain-based vault design
> > is the immutability of the flow paths once the funds are locked to the
> > root vault UTXO.
>
> Isn't this kind of inherent to the idea of covenants? You're
> precommitting to a spend path. You can put in as many "escape-hatch"
> conditions as you want (e.g. Jeremy makes the good point I should
> include an immediate-to-cold step that is sibling to the unvaulting),
> but fundamentally if you're doing covenants, you're precommitting to a
> flow of funds. Otherwise what's the point?
>
>
> > I think the remaining presence of trusted hardware in the vault design
> > might lead one to ask what's the security advantage of vaults compared
> > to classic multisig setup.
>
> Who's saying to trust hardware? Your cold key in the vault structure
> could have been generated by performing SHA rounds with the
> pebbles in your neighbor's zen garden.
>
> Keeping an actively used multi-sig setup secure certainly isn't free or
> easy. Multi-sig ceremonies (which of course can be used in this scheme)
> can be cumbersome to coordinate.
>
> If there's a known scheme that doesn't require covenants, but has
> similar usage and security characteristics, I'd love
> to know it! But being able to lock coins up for an arbitrary amount of
> time and then have advance notice of an attempted spend only seems
> possible with some kind of covenant technique.
>
> > That said, I think this security advantage is only relevant in the
> > context of recursive design, where the partial unvault sends back the
> > remaining funds to vault UTXO (not the design proposed here).
>
> I'm not really sure why this would be. Yeah, it would be cool to be able
> to partially unvault arbitrary amounts or something, but that seems like
> another order of complexity. Personally, I'd be happy to "tranche up"
> funds I'd like to store into a collection of single-hop vaults vs.
> the techniques available to us today.
>
>
> > I think you might need to introduce an intermediary, out-of-chain
> > protocol step where the unvault broadcast is formally authorized by
> > the vault stakeholders. Otherwise it's hard to qualify "unexpected",
> > as hot key compromise might not be efficiently detected.
>
> Sure; if you're using vaults I think it's safe to assume you're a fairly
> sophisticated user of bitcoin, so running a process that monitors the
> chain and responds immediately with keyless to-cold broadcasts
> doesn't seem totally out of the question, especially with conservative
> block delays.
>
> Pretty straightforward to send such a process (whether it's a program or
> a collection of humans) an authenticated signal that says "hey, expect a
> withdrawal." This kind of alert allows for cross-referencing the
> activity and seems a lot better than nothing!
>
> > Don't you also need the endpoint scriptPubkeys (<cold_pubkey>,
> > <hot_pubkey>), the amounts and CSV value ? Though I think you can
> > grind amounts and CSV value in case of loss...But I'm not sure if you
> > remove the critical data persistence requirement, just reduce the
> > surface.
>
> With any use of bitcoin you're going to have critical data that needs to
> be maintained (your privkeys at a minimum), so the game is always
> reducing surface area. If the presigned-txn vault design
> appealed to you as a user, this seems like a strict improvement.
>
> > I'm not sure if the usage of anchor output is safe for any vault
> > deployment where the funds stakeholders do not trust each other or
> > where the watchtowers are not trusted.
>
> I'm not sure who's proposing that counterparties who don't trust each
> other make a vault together. I'm thinking of individual users and
> custodians, each of which functions as a single trusted entity.
>
> Perhaps your point here is that if I'm a custodian operating a vault and
> someone unexpectedly hacks the fee keys that encumber all of my anchor
> outputs, they can possibly pin my attempted response to the unvault
> transaction - and that's true. But that doesn't seem like a fault unique
> to this scheme, and points to the need for better fee-bumping needs a la
> SIGHASH_GROUP or transaction sponsors.[0]
>
> > I would say space efficiency is of secondary concern
>
> If every major custodian ends up implementing some type of vault scheme
> (not out of the question), this might be a lot of space! However I'm all
> for facilitating the flow of bitcoin from major custodians to miners...
> but it seems like we could do that more cleanly with a block size
> reduction ;). (JUST KIDDING!)
>
> ---
>
> I think your idea about having watchtowers serve double-duty for
> lightning channels and vault schemes like this is a very good one!
>
>
> James
>
>
> [0]:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>