From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-0322 (generic signmessage) improvements
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 00:22:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pa8YeCM--QSIGM9vegsiOzaxoLyXm55KTGQBZJk2Waw6blIz3l_RxY-rgKRQ40LmJupOmL-orWwfY7tVpDVboXd4BCCpZZEbC30l8HDum2k=@wuille.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Xpjf4qIbUPHa_K-yS1GRlsG4rVXBR9OHgzsxjgABhw0hg7jPFn4l4wwgVH_1iRVR5jFDK2cUb0qsbA1FQKiQZRTFPh77MGibgaVUaVbB_Ng=@wuille.net>
On Monday, December 21, 2020 2:57 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 9:37 PM, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for taking the time to brush up the BIP. For what it's
> > worth, I am all for these changes, and I see them as clear
> > improvements all around.
> > IIRC Pieter was the one who originally suggested the two-checks
> > approach (invalid, inconclusive, valid) which is being modified here,
> > so would be good if you chimed in (or not -- which I'll assume means
> > you don't mind).
>
> I agree with the idea of permitting incomplete validators to return inconclusive as well. That doesn't really reduce the functionality (given that "inconclusive" was already a potential result), and it obviously makes it much more accessible to a variety of software.
>
> This suggestion breaks the original use of inconclusive though: the ability to detect that future features are used in the signature. The idea was to use divergence between "consensus valid" and "standardness valid" as a proxy for future extensions to be detected (e.g. OP_NOPn, future witness versions, ...). I think it's undesirable that these things now become unconditionally invalid (until the BIP is updated, but once that happens old validators will give a different result than new ones).
>
> Since the BIP no longer relies on a nebulous concept of standardness, and instead specifically defines which standardness features are to be considered, this seems easy to fix: whenever validation fails due to any of those, require reporting inconclusive instead of invalid (unless of course something actually invalid also happens). In practice I guess you'd implement that (in capable validators) by still doing validation twice, once with all features enabled that distinguish between valid/invalid, and if valid, again but now with the features enabled that distinguish between valid and (invalid or inconclusive).
Re-reading your proposed text, I'm wondering if the "consensus-only validation" extension is intended to replace the inconclusive-due-to-consensus-and-standardness-differ state. If so, I don't think it does, and regardless it doesn't seem very useful.
What I'm suggestion could be specified this way:
* If validator understands the script:
* If signature is consensus valid (as far as the validator knows):
* If signature is not known to trigger standardness rules intended for future extension (well-defined set of rules listed in BIP, and revisable): return valid
* Otherwise: return inconclusive
* Otherwise: return invalid
* Otherwise: return inconclusive
Or in other words: every signature has a well-defined result (valid, invalid, inconclusive) + validators may choose to report inconclusive for anything they don't understand.
This has the property that as long as new consensus rules only change things that were covered under for-future-extension standardness rules, no two validators will ever claim valid and invalid for the same signature. Only valid+inconclusive or invalid+inconclusive.
Cheers,
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-22 0:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-18 15:27 Andrew Poelstra
2020-12-21 5:37 ` Karl-Johan Alm
2020-12-21 22:57 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-12-22 0:22 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2020-12-22 1:11 ` Andrew Poelstra
2020-12-23 15:55 ` Andrew Poelstra
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='pa8YeCM--QSIGM9vegsiOzaxoLyXm55KTGQBZJk2Waw6blIz3l_RxY-rgKRQ40LmJupOmL-orWwfY7tVpDVboXd4BCCpZZEbC30l8HDum2k=@wuille.net' \
--to=bitcoin-dev@wuille$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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