From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bitcoindev] Trivial QC signatures with clean upgrade path
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 16:42:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2684826-6c93-419b-9a96-c0f0a791c9ac@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
There's been a few rough ideas for QC robustness in the signature scheme over Bitcoin transactions
over the past many years, but many of them have a number of fairly major drawbacks.
First, some base assumptions:
(a) QCs that can break EC will take a while (probably closer to a decade or two than a few years).
This lines up with NSA and other recommendations. We have time to upgrade, but we might consider
having an option today for wallets to get QC security later.
(b) Its entirely possible that fundamental scaling constraints will emerge and QCs that break EC
simply won't ever be reality. We might not want to bet on this, but its possible.
(c) We'll get some reasonable warning before QCs are there - QC development requires immense
resources, so much so that only a few organizations in the world can afford to hire the talent
required and fund the lab. This type of development has and will likely continue to lead to
announcements as progress continues, and we'll have a few years warning as QCs get closer and closer.
(d) post-QC security assumptions (like Lattices and obviously Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny)
are insufficient to secure coins today, and are bad candidates for inclusion in Bitcoin's consensus
due to the likelihood of future cryptography research. This implies the only candidates for post-QC
signature security in Bitcoin's consensus today are hash-based signatures (basically SPHINCS/SPHINCS+).
(e) its not worth waiting on OP_CAT and the other more general script opcode additions for this, as
those seem stuck in bikeshed hell, not to mention questions around MEVil and Bitcoin's future
abound. Further, doing this via dedicated opcode simplifies wallet adoption, which is likely to
struggle already given the additional workload for wallet developers for no immediate user-facing
features.
Given these assumptions, it seems ill-advised for wallets today to start locking funds up in a way
where they need to pay the on-chain footprint cost to get post-QC security for their transactions
*today*, but given upgrade cycles in Bitcoin it also seems ill-advised to not have some option for
wallets to have "emergency" paths.
Luckily, taproot provides a great way to build such a scheme! Because taproot script-path spends are
strongly-bound (the taproot script-path hash t includes the internal key in its hash), a future QC
could determine the associated private key and script-path merkle root, but it cannot forge an
alternative script-path merkle-root.
This provides a compelling hook for post-QC security - with the simple addition of an OP_SPHINCS (or
equivalent post-QC non-one-time-use (i.e. not Lamport/Winternitz) signature verification opcode,
functioning in much the same was OP_CHECKSIG works today), wallets simply need to construct their
taproot outputs to always contain a script-path alternative spending condition. When QCs are
becoming a reality, key-path taproot spends could be disabled via soft-fork, forcing spends to be
done using the QC-secure path.
This scheme obviously has the major drawback of non-upgraded funds confiscation at the time of QC
existence, but:
(a) we could instead require explicit opt-in for this scheme. This has the drawback of yet another
on-chain fingerprint and would require a new scriptPubKey format (but keeping the existing bech32m
address format, hopefully most wallets support that without any code changes today). Of course if we
do, substantial quantities of Bitcoin which are unlikely to ever be spent could lead to supply
shock, severely damaging Bitcoin's utility in other ways,
(b) alternatively, we could allow key-path spends for wallets which prove the script-path is a NUMS
point (via some new keypath+proof spend variant). I doubt many wallets today bother committing to a
NUMS point for their taproot output pubkeys, so this would break existing wallets, but it would
allow for an opt-out scheme.
This scheme has the incredibly nice property of not bloating existing use-cases nearly at all (just
one extra taproot script-path branch, but that's not a huge deal generally).
There's a few things to bike-shed on here, though - first of all whether to require opt-in or
provide an opt-out and secondly whether to also fail any script-paths that hit an ECDSA signature
validation (probably yes?).
I assume this has been written up elsewhere but I couldn't find it. Most of this is due to
not_nothingmuch, I'm just writing it up here and taking credit for it.
This doesn't address the questions around PoW in a post-QC world, of course, but that likely isn't
something that can be answered until we see more practical limitations of QCs (eg what is the
minimal latency of a QC gate? If its particularly low, can we simply complexify Bitcoin's PoW hash
function in order to delay QC results far past when traditional hardware is able to mine a block?)
Matt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/c2684826-6c93-419b-9a96-c0f0a791c9ac%40mattcorallo.com.
next reply other threads:[~2024-12-15 21:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-15 21:42 Matt Corallo [this message]
2024-12-15 23:54 ` Luke Dashjr
2024-12-16 1:30 ` Weikeng Chen
2024-12-16 1:40 ` Matt Corallo
2024-12-16 11:14 ` Anthony Towns
2024-12-16 15:57 ` Matt Corallo
2024-12-16 22:20 ` Tadge Dryja
2024-12-17 5:31 ` 'conduition' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2024-12-18 3:29 ` Antoine Riard
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=c2684826-6c93-419b-9a96-c0f0a791c9ac@mattcorallo.com \
--to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
/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