From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Malleable booleans
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:54:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBh4r8CzdOZ_nfJpq_7W07-e0bP7Subnxpsm=29tzKK0OQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141014080905.GA10545@savin.petertodd.org>
To be clear: I indeed meant to only allow 0 and 1 as booleans (or,
more precisely: [] and [0x01]). Evaluating any stack element as a
boolean that is not any of these would result in script failure.
The only places where this is relevant:
* Inputs to OP_IF and OP_NOTIF (which are currently allowed to be any
byte array).
* Inputs to OP_BOOLAND and OP_BOOLOR (which are currently allowed to
be any valid number).
* The resulting final element on the stack for validity.
The code for converting stack elements to booleans is also invoked for
all OP_*VERIFY operators, but for those it is always the output of a
previous operator, so it will not have any semantic impact.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> I noticed this awhile back myself. More interestingly, I remember
> noticing some non-std scripts on mainnet that had opcodes that appeared
> to be attempts to solve this issue with variations of the following:
>
> DUP
> IF
> 1 EQUALVERIFY
> <do stuff>
> ELSE
> 0 EQUALVERIFY
> <do stuff>
> ENDIFo.
>
> I'll have to admit, I decided to keep quiet about it because it's a good
> example of how relying on BIP62 for specialty contract applications that
> absolutely need to avoid malleability for security reasons is a dubious
> idea; it's hard to be sure that we've really gotten every relevant case
> correct.
I think my goal is to have the property that for every possible
script, there is an equivalent one that is non-malleable. There are
likely still holes in that idea, but at least for just standard
scripts I think BIP62 (as is) covers this. And as your example points
out (Greg and I discussed this, though we didn't come up with such a
concise one), it is already possible for boolean inputs too.
> I think a decent argument *for* doing this is that if a script author
> fails to properly 'bool-ize' every boolean-using path that can have
> non-minimal encodings in normal execution, you can always create a
> nVersion=1 transaction manually to spend the output, preventing funds
> from getting lost. Meanwhile in the general case of a compenent script
> author having the canonical bool testing in every boolean-using opcode
> saves a lot of bytes.
The real question is whether there are use cases for not having this
requirement. I can't come up with any, as that would imply a boolean
that is also interpretable as a hash, a pubkey or a signature - all of
which seems crpytographically impossible to ever result in false.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-14 18:54 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
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 [this message]
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='CAPg+sBh4r8CzdOZ_nfJpq_7W07-e0bP7Subnxpsm=29tzKK0OQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--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