Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts

From: Andrea <a.raspitzu@protonmail•com>
To: William Casarin <jb55@jb55•com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:39:02 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <SBu1mxevY6vaDj8jipOqQacRY02PPUHcsq30eXRaC5jwE5JKCfNuM9RNKVSQvQfup1fBfWEcANimrKbdQFFbdg4bmb2yvv7UVdLRHyuMIyc=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k1qk7oca.fsf@jb55.com>

Hi William, Andrew, list,

As noted by William there are some types missing in the global-types definition, because the number of each map for I/O must be known to the parser in order to use the correct definitions for the types. At the moment a parser reading a key-value record does not know whether it should read it as per-input type or per-output, a way to address this is to declare in advance the number of maps and ensure they are ordered (inputs first). If you haven't already worked out some types for that i propose using:

Number of inputs
- key (None, only the type): PSBT_GLOBAL_INPUT_NUMBER = 0x01  
- value: Varint 

Number of outputs
- key (none, only the type): PSBT_GLOBAL_OUTPUT_NUMBER = 0x02
- value: Varint

On another note I think we can set a hard limit on the size of the PSBT, currently is 'legal' to produce a very large PSBT with an excessive number of Inputs and Outputs. By excessive I mean that even in the best case scenario (using the smallest possible scriptPubKey as in P2WPKH) it is possible to create a PSBT that would certainly create an invalid transaction (because of its size) when finalized. I haven't found anything related to this in the previous discussions, please ignore this if it was already proposed/discussed.

Cheers, Andrea.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On June 27, 2018 8:09 AM, William Casarin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hey Andrew,
> 
> If I'm reading the spec right: the way it is designed right now, you
> 
> could create hundreds of thousands of zero bytes in the input or output
> 
> key-value arrays. As far as I can tell this would be considered valid,
> 
> as it is simply a large array of empty dictionaries. Is this right? I'm
> 
> worried about buffer overflows in cases where someone sends a large blob
> 
> of zeros to an unsuspecting implementation.
> 
> Also, the extensibility section reads:
> 
> > Additional key-value maps with different types for the key-value pairs
> > 
> > can be added on to the end of the format.
> 
> "different types for the key-value pairs", is this referring to new
> 
> types beyond the current global, input and output types?
> 
> > The number of each map that follows must be specified in the globals
> > 
> > section
> 
> Is this out of date? Since there is only one type in the global section
> 
> now (tx).
> 
> > so that parsers will know when to use different definitions of the
> > 
> > data types
> 
> I'm not sure what this means.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Will
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> https://jb55.com
> 
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev