public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy covenants (OP_CAT2)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 03:07:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fkMEju1kNN5OJPoI1d2K99sV0bhr7qeAnhVbv-99K_UL48YQyHp-rbqEfQ81crx-thaA8JuUY4-eFlYUskvFC_8h6DIhdF0Wj-v-4DNnlcI=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnzjcYDM-mOhT00P7YO18YmjxRkYsfO6QFtYFn0mEtLQw@mail.gmail.com>

Good morning Russell,

> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:42 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > REMEMBER: `OP_CAT` BY ITSELF DOES NOT ENABLE COVENANTS, WHETHER RECURSIVE OR NOT.
>
>
> I think the state of the art has advanced to the point where we can say "OP_CAT in tapscript enables non recursive covenants and it is unknown whether OP_CAT can enable recursive covenants or not".
>
> A. Poelstra in https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/blog/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-i.html show how to use CAT to use the schnorr verification opcode to get the sighash value + 1 onto the stack, and then through some grinding and some more CAT, get the actual sighash value on the stack. From there we can use SHA256 to get the signed transaction data onto the stack and apply introspect (using CAT) to build functionality similar to OP_CTV.
>
> The missing bits for enabling recursive covenants comes down to needing to transform a scriptpubkey into an taproot address, which involves some tweaking. Poelstra has suggested that it might be possible to hijack the ECDSA checksig operation from a parallel, legacy input, in order to perform the calculations for this tweaking. But as far as I know no one has yet been able to achieve this feat.

Hmm, I do not suppose it would have worked in ECDSA?
Seems like this exploits linearity in the Schnorr.
For the ECDSA case it seems that the trick in that link leads to `s = e + G[x]` where `G[x]` is the x-coordinate of `G`.
(I am not a mathist, so I probably am not making sense; in particular, there may be an operation to add two SECP256K1 scalars that I am not aware of)

In that case, since Schnorr was added later, I get away by a technicality, since it is not *just* `OP_CAT` which enabled this style of covenant, it was `OP_CAT` + BIP340 v(^^);;;;;

Also holy shit math is scary.

Seems this also works with `OP_SUBSTR`, simply by inverting it into "validate that the concatenation is correct" rather than "concatenate it ourselves".




So really: are recursive covenants good or...?
Because if recursive covenants are good, what we should really work on is making them cheap (in CPU load/bandwidth load terms) and private, to avoid centralization and censoring.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-12  3:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-06 22:30 Jorge Timón
2022-05-07  3:06 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-07  3:52   ` vjudeu
2022-05-07 13:31     ` Jorge Timón
2022-05-11 15:25     ` alicexbt
2022-05-11 16:03       ` vjudeu
2022-05-07 13:27   ` Jorge Timón
2022-05-07 14:08     ` ZmnSCPxj
     [not found]       ` <CABm2gDo1wTOoWcNgJ4mUgSB3KCtBSnjqe3nwVBSL+7=ziDJ==w@mail.gmail.com>
2022-05-07 22:28         ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-08  2:03       ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-05-08  2:19         ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-11 10:57           ` vjudeu
2022-05-11 11:42             ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-11 19:41               ` Russell O'Connor
2022-05-12  3:07                 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
2022-05-12 10:48                   ` Russell O'Connor
2022-05-13 21:43                     ` Anthony Towns
2022-05-13 23:33                       ` Russell O'Connor
2022-05-14 13:32                         ` Erik Aronesty

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='fkMEju1kNN5OJPoI1d2K99sV0bhr7qeAnhVbv-99K_UL48YQyHp-rbqEfQ81crx-thaA8JuUY4-eFlYUskvFC_8h6DIhdF0Wj-v-4DNnlcI=@protonmail.com' \
    --to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)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