From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CheckSigFromStack for Arithmetic Values
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 13:10:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <gke1-m0LNsMpPk9TB2ZeeUGgBza7guUJWFWjEhGRMt3MhkYZ7FDOhytx8gY7lv5P2lojyO943NL3T7Jkgwardq2UfLktKcU0TZeQCD70hr4=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5g9bzPMinzlRiQhDmlVBo1OQyR516-RABcphP1QiiLBbS47dZwvz_ufqLndLcUZL4OApEZvP60k4hliVuK50lEJkN1qY0QppKx2uUXpEkLY=@protonmail.com>
Good morning Erik and Jeremy,
> The "for" arithmetic here is largely to mean that this cleverness allows an implementation of `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`, using arithmetic operation `OP_ADD`.
>
> To my mind this cleverness is more of an argument against ever enabling `OP_ADD` and friends, LOL.
> This is more of a "bad but ridiculously clever thing" post than a "Bitcoin should totally use this thing" post.
Turns out `OP_ADD` is actually still enabled in Bitcoin, LOL, I thought it was hit in the same banhammer that hit `OP_CAT` and `OP_MUL`.
Limited to 32 bits, but that simply means that you just validate longer bitvectors (e.g. the `s` in the "lamport-sign the EC signature") in sections of 32 bits.
In any case, the point still mostly stands, I think this is more of a "overall bad but still ridiculously clever" idea; the script and witness sizes are fairly awful.
Mostly just worth discussing just in case it triggers somebody else to think of a related idea that takes some of the cleverness but is overall better.
On the other hand if we can actually implement the "Lamport-sign the EC sig" idea (I imagine the 32-bit limit requires some kind of `OP_CAT` or similar, or other bit or vector slicing operetion), that does mean Bitcoin is already quantum-safe (but has a fairly lousy quantum-safe signing scheme, I really do not know the characteristics of better ones though).
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-04 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-02 22:20 Jeremy
2021-07-02 23:58 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-03 4:01 ` Jeremy
2021-07-03 11:31 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-07-04 0:22 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-04 13:10 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
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='gke1-m0LNsMpPk9TB2ZeeUGgBza7guUJWFWjEhGRMt3MhkYZ7FDOhytx8gY7lv5P2lojyO943NL3T7Jkgwardq2UfLktKcU0TZeQCD70hr4=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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