--- Day changed Mon Nov 18 2019 00:21 -!- daniel__ [~quassel@89.245.184.230] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 00:56 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:01 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 01:09 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 01:22 -!- ZmnSCPxj_ [~ZmnSCPxj@180.190.33.230] has quit [Quit: ZmnSCPxj_] 01:47 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:49 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 01:54 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:15 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.138] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 02:33 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 03:15 -!- orfeas [81d75b21@dhcp-91-033.inf.ed.ac.uk] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 03:42 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:46 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:46 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:47 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:58 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:59 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 05:19 -!- Guest61 [~textual@91.240.140.128] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com] 05:33 -!- Guest61 [~textual@91.240.140.128] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 06:34 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:39 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 06:53 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.138] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 09:19 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.179] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 09:52 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 10:12 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-67-180-60-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:15 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 10:18 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.179] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:25 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.40] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 10:43 -!- orfeas [81d75b21@dhcp-91-033.inf.ed.ac.uk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:45 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-67-180-60-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 10:53 < instagibbs_> "The function bytes(P), where P is a point, returns bytes(x(P))'." is the end ' a typo or meaningful? 10:55 < nickler> instagibbs_: a typo, orfeas opened a PR fixing this a few hours ago 10:56 < instagibbs_> ah 12:31 < pinheadmz> In case anyone is interested, I modified the sipa/taproot branch to export Taproot test vectors, for use in testing alternative implementations or wallet implementations: https://github.com/pinheadmz/bitcoin/blob/taproottest1/README.md 12:31 < pinheadmz> Basically modified the feature_taproot.py test to create a JSON file of all the UTXOs and transactions 12:31 < pinheadmz> Using this, I was able to begin implementing taproot in bcoin (so far, just up to the TX digest algo - what a beast!) 12:48 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.40] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 12:55 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.139] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 13:09 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:14 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.139] has quit [Quit: jonatack] 13:18 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 14:47 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:39 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 15:40 -!- evoskuil [~evoskuil@c-67-161-88-73.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 15:48 -!- ZmnSCPxj_ [~ZmnSCPxj@180.190.33.230] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 15:58 < evoskuil[m]> Thanks for this 👆. 16:03 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 16:20 < sipa> pinheadmz: nice, that'll be very useful to generate actual test vectors to include in the bip 16:31 -!- daniel__ [~quassel@89.245.184.230] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:55 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 17:02 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 17:18 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 17:57 -!- rottensox [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has quit [Quit: Bye] 17:57 < evoskuil> The Abstract of bip-143 states: "This proposal defines a new transaction digest algorithm for signature verification in version 0 witness program" and the Specification goes on to remove FindAndDelete (for v0 scripts). bip-taproot is v1 and silent on FindAndDelete. I assume the expectation is that FindAndDelete should never rear its ugly head in a versioned script, but if so this should be made explicit, including whether 18:02 <@aj> evoskuil: cut off after "including whether" 18:02 < evoskuil> ... this can be applied retroactively to reserved versions. 18:03 < evoskuil> @aj: thanks, not sure what happened, it echoed fine. 18:05 < sipa> bip-taproot specifies a new signature hashing scheme, the one from BIP143 isn't used anymore in taproot spends 18:05 < sipa> perhaps that can be made explicit 18:11 < sipa> evoskuil: ah, perhaps this clarifies things better: the bip-taproot/tapscript sighash scheme doesn't include a "scriptCode" anymore (where the FindAndDelete used to be applied to) 18:12 < evoskuil> Actually I think it's probably sufficient as is. It would be nice to explicitly exclude it from all versioned scripts in the older code, but not necessary. 18:12 < sipa> instead there is the actual scriptPubKey, and for tapscript, the hash of the leaf that is chosen leaf 18:12 < sipa> -leaf 18:14 < evoskuil> Yeah, this is just a consequence of working through the spec in stages. It would have become obvious later. 18:14 < sipa> Ah, you mean a clarification in BIP143 like "Note that this scheme is not used in v1 witnesses", if bip-taproot ends up being adopted? 18:18 < evoskuil> No, I don't think any further clarification is required. It's just that when working through the places where version is used I hit the FindAndDelete condition, and instead of explicitly checking for v0 I wanted to check for "versioned", but this code won't execute for taproot. 18:18 < sipa> Right. 18:28 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:54 -!- ZmnSCPxj_ [~ZmnSCPxj@180.190.33.230] has quit [Quit: ZmnSCPxj_] 19:53 -!- ZmnSCPxj [9258463b@146.88.70.59] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 19:55 < ZmnSCPxj> elichai2, instagibbs: regarding MuSig-in-MuSig, this is used in my Nodelets proposal: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-October/002236.html 19:55 < ZmnSCPxj> Obviously, Schnorr-based channels will use MuSig between the channel participants 19:55 < ZmnSCPxj> Nodelets considers the possibility that one of the nodes in the Lightning network is actually composed of multiple participants that have to be online 100% of the time 19:56 < ZmnSCPxj> It seems MuSig-in-MuSig resolves down to a 2-phase MuSig, which has a security proof that was shown as flawed 19:57 < ZmnSCPxj> I am in communication with MuSig authors and Tim Ruffing regarding composable MuSig. 19:58 < ZmnSCPxj> It seems to me that there should not be any issue if a participant in any MuSig-using protocol is itself an aggregate. 19:58 < ZmnSCPxj> One may observe that typical sentiences are primarily composed of multiple nonsentient agents, for example. 19:58 < ZmnSCPxj> (unless access to your design is not available to humans?) 20:00 < ZmnSCPxj> Regarding composable MuSig, it seems possible to use ElGamal commitments in the first phase of 3-phase MuSig. 20:01 < ZmnSCPxj> But part of ElGamal commitment is showing a point q * G in the commitment, which leads me to wonder why it would not be subject to the same flaw as 2-phase MuSig 20:03 < ZmnSCPxj> In any case, I am now checking through the logs kept by aj on erisian.com.au, so please respond at your leisure 20:03 -!- ZmnSCPxj [9258463b@146.88.70.59] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:03 -!- hebasto [~hebasto@95.164.65.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 21:07 -!- hebasto [~hebasto@95.164.65.194] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 23:01 -!- tecnovert [~user@mail.tecnovert.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 23:14 -!- tecnovert [~user@64.34.219.27] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 23:52 -!- daniel__ [~quassel@89.245.184.230] has joined ##taproot-bip-review