Private Collaborative Custody with FROST

Private Collaborative Custody with FROST
2023-08-29 11:51 ` rot13maxi
  
From: Nick Farrow @ 2023-08-28 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6402 bytes --]

Hello all,

Some thoughts on private collaborative custody services for Bitcoin.

With multiparty computation multisignatures like FROST [0], it is possible
to build a collaborative custodian service that is extremely private for
users.

Today's collaborative custodians can see your entire wallet history even if
you never require them to help sign a transaction, and they have full
liberty to censor any signature requests they deem inappropriate or are
coerced into censoring.

With FROST, a private collaborative custodian can hold a key to a multisig
while remaining unaware of the public key (and wallet) which they help
control. By hiding this public key, we solve the issue of existing
collaborative custodians who learn of all wallet transactions even if you
never use them.

Further, in the scenario that we do call upon a private collaborative
custodian to help sign a transaction, this transaction could be signed
**blindly**. Being blind to the transaction request itself and unknowing of
past onchain behavior, these custodians have no practical information to
enact censorship requests or non-cooperation. A stark contrast to today's
non-private collaborative custodians who could very easily be coerced into
not collaborating with users.


Enrolling a Private Collaborative Custodian

Each signer in a FROST multisig controls a point belonging to a joint
polynomial at some participant index.

Participants in an existing multisig can collaborate in an enrollment
protocol (Section 4.1.3 of [1], [2]) to securely generate a new point on
this shared polynomial and verifiably communicate it to a new participant,
in this case a collaborative custodian.

The newly enrolled custodian should end by sharing their own *public* point
so that all other parties can verify it does in-fact lie on the image of
the joint polynomial at their index (i.e. belong to the FROST key). (The
custodian themselves is unable to verify this, since we want to hide our
public key we do not share the image of our joint polynomial with them).


Blind Collaborative Signing

Once the collaborative custodian controls a point belonging to this FROST
key, we can now get their help to sign messages.

We believe it to be possible for a signing server to follow a scheme
similar to that of regular blind Schnorr signatures, while making the
produced signature compatible with the partial signatures from other FROST
participants.

We can achieve this compatibility by having the server sign under a single
nonce (not a binding nonce-pair like usual FROST), which is later blinded
by the nonce contributions from other signers. The challenge also can be
blinded with a factor that includes the necessary Lagrange coefficient so
that this partial signature correctly combines with the other FROST
signatures from the signing quorum.

As an overview, we give a 3rd party a secret share belonging to our FROST
key. When we need their help to sign something, we ask them to send us
(FROST coordinator) a public nonce, then we create a challenge for them to
sign with a blind Schnorr scheme. They sign this challenge, send it back,
and we then combine it with the other partial signatures from FROST to form
a complete Schnorr signature that is valid under the multisignature's
public key.

During this process the collaborative custodian has been unknowing of our
public key, and unknowing as to the contents of the challenge which we have
requested them to sign. The collaborative signer doesn't even need to know
that they are participating in FROST whatsoever.


Unknowing Signing Isn't So Scary

A server that signs arbitrary challenges sounds scary, but each secret
share is unique to a particular FROST key. The collaborative custodian
should protect this service well with some policy, e.g. user
authentication, perhaps involving cooperation from a number of other
parties (< threshold) within the multisig. This could help prevent parties
from abusing the service to "get another vote" towards the multisig
threshold.

Unknowingly collaborating in the signing of bitcoin transactions could be a
legal gray area, but it also places you in a realm of extreme privacy that
may alleviate you from regulatory and legal demands that are now impossible
for you to enforce (like seen with Mullvad VPN [3]). Censorship requests
made from past onchain behavior such as coinjoins becomes impossible, as
does the enforcement of address or UTXO blocklists.

By having the collaborative custodian sign under some form of blind
Schnorr, the server is not contributing any nonce with binding value for
the aggregate nonce. Naively this could open up some form of Drijvers
attacks which may allow for forgeries (see FROST paper [0]), but I think we
can eliminate given the right approach.

Blind Schnorr schemes also introduce attack vectors with
multiple concurrent signing requests [4], one idea to prevent this is to
disallow simultaneous signing operations at the collaborative custodian.
Even though Bitcoin transactions can require multiple signatures, these
signatures could be made sequentially with a rejection of any signature
request that uses anything other than the latest nonce.

Risks may differ depending on whether the service is emergency-only or for
whether it is frequently a participant in signing operations.

-------

Thanks to @LLFOURN for ongoing thoughts, awareness of enrollment protocols,
and observation that this can all fall back into a standard Schnorr
signature.

Curious for any thoughts, flaws or expansions upon this idea,

Gist of this post, which I may keep updated and add equations:
https://gist.github.com/nickfarrow/4be776782bce0c12cca523cbc203fb9d/

Nick

-------

References

* [0] FROST: https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/852.pdf
* [1] A Survey and Refinement of Repairable Threshold Schemes (Enrollment:
Section 4.3): https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1155.pdf
* [2] Modifying FROST Threshold and Signers:
https://gist.github.com/nickfarrow/64c2e65191cde6a1a47bbd4572bf8cf8/
* [3] Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant. Customer data not
compromised:
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-search-warrant-customer-data-not-compromised/
* [4] Blind Schnorr Signatures and Signed ElGamal Encryption in the
Algebraic Group Model: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/877.pdf
* [5] FROST in secp256kfun:
https://docs.rs/schnorr_fun/latest/schnorr_fun/frost/index.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8946 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2023-08-28 19:35 [bitcoin-dev] Private Collaborative Custody with FROST Nick Farrow

  2023-08-30 12:16   ` Nick Farrow
  
From: rot13maxi @ 2023-08-29 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nick Farrow, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7095 bytes --]

Good morning Nick,

Love the direction of this.

> We can achieve this compatibility by having the server sign under a single nonce (not a binding nonce-pair like usual FROST), which is later blinded by the nonce contributions from other signers.

Can you say more about this? It sounds like the blinding is happening post-signing? Or is it happening during the normal nonce commitment trading?

Rijndael

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 3:35 PM, Nick Farrow via bitcoin-dev <[bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 3:35 PM, Nick Farrow via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Some thoughts on private collaborative custody services for Bitcoin.
>
> With multiparty computation multisignatures like FROST [0], it is possible to build a collaborative custodian service that is extremely private for users.
>
> Today's collaborative custodians can see your entire wallet history even if you never require them to help sign a transaction, and they have full liberty to censor any signature requests they deem inappropriate or are coerced into censoring.
>
> With FROST, a private collaborative custodian can hold a key to a multisig while remaining unaware of the public key (and wallet) which they help control. By hiding this public key, we solve the issue of existing collaborative custodians who learn of all wallet transactions even if you never use them.
>
> Further, in the scenario that we do call upon a private collaborative custodian to help sign a transaction, this transaction could be signed **blindly**. Being blind to the transaction request itself and unknowing of past onchain behavior, these custodians have no practical information to enact censorship requests or non-cooperation. A stark contrast to today's non-private collaborative custodians who could very easily be coerced into not collaborating with users.
>
> Enrolling a Private Collaborative Custodian
>
> Each signer in a FROST multisig controls a point belonging to a joint polynomial at some participant index.
>
> Participants in an existing multisig can collaborate in an enrollment protocol (Section 4.1.3 of [1], [2]) to securely generate a new point on this shared polynomial and verifiably communicate it to a new participant, in this case a collaborative custodian.
>
> The newly enrolled custodian should end by sharing their own *public* point so that all other parties can verify it does in-fact lie on the image of the joint polynomial at their index (i.e. belong to the FROST key). (The custodian themselves is unable to verify this, since we want to hide our public key we do not share the image of our joint polynomial with them).
>
> Blind Collaborative Signing
>
> Once the collaborative custodian controls a point belonging to this FROST key, we can now get their help to sign messages.
>
> We believe it to be possible for a signing server to follow a scheme similar to that of regular blind Schnorr signatures, while making the produced signature compatible with the partial signatures from other FROST participants.
>
> We can achieve this compatibility by having the server sign under a single nonce (not a binding nonce-pair like usual FROST), which is later blinded by the nonce contributions from other signers. The challenge also can be blinded with a factor that includes the necessary Lagrange coefficient so that this partial signature correctly combines with the other FROST signatures from the signing quorum.
>
> As an overview, we give a 3rd party a secret share belonging to our FROST key. When we need their help to sign something, we ask them to send us (FROST coordinator) a public nonce, then we create a challenge for them to sign with a blind Schnorr scheme. They sign this challenge, send it back, and we then combine it with the other partial signatures from FROST to form a complete Schnorr signature that is valid under the multisignature's public key.
>
> During this process the collaborative custodian has been unknowing of our public key, and unknowing as to the contents of the challenge which we have requested them to sign. The collaborative signer doesn't even need to know that they are participating in FROST whatsoever.
>
> Unknowing Signing Isn't So Scary
>
> A server that signs arbitrary challenges sounds scary, but each secret share is unique to a particular FROST key. The collaborative custodian should protect this service well with some policy, e.g. user authentication, perhaps involving cooperation from a number of other parties (< threshold) within the multisig. This could help prevent parties from abusing the service to "get another vote" towards the multisig threshold.
>
> Unknowingly collaborating in the signing of bitcoin transactions could be a legal gray area, but it also places you in a realm of extreme privacy that may alleviate you from regulatory and legal demands that are now impossible for you to enforce (like seen with Mullvad VPN [3]). Censorship requests made from past onchain behavior such as coinjoins becomes impossible, as does the enforcement of address or UTXO blocklists.
>
> By having the collaborative custodian sign under some form of blind Schnorr, the server is not contributing any nonce with binding value for the aggregate nonce. Naively this could open up some form of Drijvers attacks which may allow for forgeries (see FROST paper [0]), but I think we can eliminate given the right approach.
>
> Blind Schnorr schemes also introduce attack vectors with multiple concurrent signing requests [4], one idea to prevent this is to disallow simultaneous signing operations at the collaborative custodian. Even though Bitcoin transactions can require multiple signatures, these signatures could be made sequentially with a rejection of any signature request that uses anything other than the latest nonce.
>
> Risks may differ depending on whether the service is emergency-only or for whether it is frequently a participant in signing operations.
>
> -------
>
> Thanks to @LLFOURN for ongoing thoughts, awareness of enrollment protocols, and observation that this can all fall back into a standard Schnorr signature.
>
> Curious for any thoughts, flaws or expansions upon this idea,
>
> Gist of this post, which I may keep updated and add equations:
> https://gist.github.com/nickfarrow/4be776782bce0c12cca523cbc203fb9d/
>
> Nick
>
> -------
>
> References
>
> * [0] FROST: https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/852.pdf
> * [1] A Survey and Refinement of Repairable Threshold Schemes (Enrollment: Section 4.3): https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1155.pdf
> * [2] Modifying FROST Threshold and Signers: https://gist.github.com/nickfarrow/64c2e65191cde6a1a47bbd4572bf8cf8/
> * [3] Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant. Customer data not compromised: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-search-warrant-customer-data-not-compromised/
> * [4] Blind Schnorr Signatures and Signed ElGamal Encryption in the Algebraic Group Model: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/877.pdf
> * [5] FROST in secp256kfun: https://docs.rs/schnorr_fun/latest/schnorr_fun/frost/index.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10632 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2023-08-29 11:51 ` rot13maxi

  
From: Nick Farrow @ 2023-08-30 12:16 UTC ( / )
  To: rot13maxi;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion



Hey Rijndael,

Here are some rough ideas for a draft scheme that I think will help explain
this better.

We begin by taking a single public nonce `D` from the collaborative signing
server to form a nonce pair for FROST `(D, 0)`.

This is then used to build the aggregate FROST nonce `R` which the signer
set `S` is going to sign under:
```
R_i = D_i * (E_i)^ρ_i
R = Product[R_i, i in S]
```
This aggregate FROST nonce is now blinded by the contributions from other
signers (collaborative custodian doesn't know the other participant's
nonces)

Now with our FROST public key `X`, this aggregate nonce `R`, and a message
`m` corresponding to our planned Bitcoin transaction input, we calculate
the corresponding challenge `c` we need signed.

```
c = H(R || X || m)
```

Like regular blind schnorr, we also want to blind this challenge so that
the signing server cannot recognize it onchain.

The challenge can be blinded with a factor that includes the necessary
Lagrange coefficient so that the partial signature correctly combines with
the other FROST signatures from the signing quorum. Using their participant
index `i` and the set of signing parties `S`
```
c' = λ_i_S * c
```

Note: if this `λ_i_S` is the sole challenge blinding factor, it is
important that we give the collaborative custodian a non-trivial (random)
participant index such that they cannot lookup onchain challenges
multiplied by common Lagrange coefficients to match the challenge they
signed.

Now we have formed the challenge, we get the server to sign under the
regular Schnorr singing equation using their FROST secret share `s_i` and
nonce secret `d_i`:

```
z_i = d_i + (e_i * ρ_i) + λ_i * s_i * c # FROST signing equation
= d_i + (0 * ρ_i) + s_i * c' # Since we're signing for binonce commitment
(D, 0)
= d_i + s_i * c'
```

Once we have this partial signature, we get the other `t-1` participants to
undertake FROST signing. We take the collaborative custodian's signature
and combine it with the other partial signatures to form a complete Schnorr
signature for the message valid under the group's FROST key.

Again, security needs a serious assessment. Especially because we're
dropping the binding factor in the collaborative custodian's nonce. It's
likely crucial that collaborative signing sessions are not done in parallel
and transaction inputs are signed one at a time.

Hope that explains the ideas for blinding and FROST compatibility better!

Nick

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM rot13maxi <rot13maxi@protonmail•com> wrote:

> Good morning Nick,
>
> Love the direction of this.
>
> > We can achieve this compatibility by having the server sign under a
> single nonce (not a binding nonce-pair like usual FROST), which is later
> blinded by the nonce contributions from other signers.
>
> Can you say more about this? It sounds like the blinding is happening
> post-signing? Or is it happening during the normal nonce commitment trading?
>
> Rijndael
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 3:35 PM, Nick Farrow via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> <On+Mon,+Aug+28,+2023+at+3:35+PM,+Nick+Farrow+via+bitcoin-dev+%3C%3Ca+href=>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Some thoughts on private collaborative custody services for Bitcoin.
>
> With multiparty computation multisignatures like FROST [0], it is possible
> to build a collaborative custodian service that is extremely private for
> users.
>
> Today's collaborative custodians can see your entire wallet history even
> if you never require them to help sign a transaction, and they have full
> liberty to censor any signature requests they deem inappropriate or are
> coerced into censoring.
>
> With FROST, a private collaborative custodian can hold a key to a multisig
> while remaining unaware of the public key (and wallet) which they help
> control. By hiding this public key, we solve the issue of existing
> collaborative custodians who learn of all wallet transactions even if you
> never use them.
>
> Further, in the scenario that we do call upon a private collaborative
> custodian to help sign a transaction, this transaction could be signed
> **blindly**. Being blind to the transaction request itself and unknowing of
> past onchain behavior, these custodians have no practical information to
> enact censorship requests or non-cooperation. A stark contrast to today's
> non-private collaborative custodians who could very easily be coerced into
> not collaborating with users.
>
>
> Enrolling a Private Collaborative Custodian
>
> Each signer in a FROST multisig controls a point belonging to a joint
> polynomial at some participant index.
>
> Participants in an existing multisig can collaborate in an enrollment
> protocol (Section 4.1.3 of [1], [2]) to securely generate a new point on
> this shared polynomial and verifiably communicate it to a new participant,
> in this case a collaborative custodian.
>
> The newly enrolled custodian should end by sharing their own *public*
> point so that all other parties can verify it does in-fact lie on the image
> of the joint polynomial at their index (i.e. belong to the FROST key). (The
> custodian themselves is unable to verify this, since we want to hide our
> public key we do not share the image of our joint polynomial with them).
>
>
> Blind Collaborative Signing
>
> Once the collaborative custodian controls a point belonging to this FROST
> key, we can now get their help to sign messages.
>
> We believe it to be possible for a signing server to follow a scheme
> similar to that of regular blind Schnorr signatures, while making the
> produced signature compatible with the partial signatures from other FROST
> participants.
>
> We can achieve this compatibility by having the server sign under a single
> nonce (not a binding nonce-pair like usual FROST), which is later blinded
> by the nonce contributions from other signers. The challenge also can be
> blinded with a factor that includes the necessary Lagrange coefficient so
> that this partial signature correctly combines with the other FROST
> signatures from the signing quorum.
>
> As an overview, we give a 3rd party a secret share belonging to our FROST
> key. When we need their help to sign something, we ask them to send us
> (FROST coordinator) a public nonce, then we create a challenge for them to
> sign with a blind Schnorr scheme. They sign this challenge, send it back,
> and we then combine it with the other partial signatures from FROST to form
> a complete Schnorr signature that is valid under the multisignature's
> public key.
>
> During this process the collaborative custodian has been unknowing of our
> public key, and unknowing as to the contents of the challenge which we have
> requested them to sign. The collaborative signer doesn't even need to know
> that they are participating in FROST whatsoever.
>
>
> Unknowing Signing Isn't So Scary
>
> A server that signs arbitrary challenges sounds scary, but each secret
> share is unique to a particular FROST key. The collaborative custodian
> should protect this service well with some policy, e.g. user
> authentication, perhaps involving cooperation from a number of other
> parties (< threshold) within the multisig. This could help prevent parties
> from abusing the service to "get another vote" towards the multisig
> threshold.
>
> Unknowingly collaborating in the signing of bitcoin transactions could be
> a legal gray area, but it also places you in a realm of extreme privacy
> that may alleviate you from regulatory and legal demands that are now
> impossible for you to enforce (like seen with Mullvad VPN [3]). Censorship
> requests made from past onchain behavior such as coinjoins becomes
> impossible, as does the enforcement of address or UTXO blocklists.
>
> By having the collaborative custodian sign under some form of blind
> Schnorr, the server is not contributing any nonce with binding value for
> the aggregate nonce. Naively this could open up some form of Drijvers
> attacks which may allow for forgeries (see FROST paper [0]), but I think we
> can eliminate given the right approach.
>
> Blind Schnorr schemes also introduce attack vectors with multiple
> concurrent signing requests [4], one idea to prevent this is to disallow
> simultaneous signing operations at the collaborative custodian. Even though
> Bitcoin transactions can require multiple signatures, these signatures
> could be made sequentially with a rejection of any signature request that
> uses anything other than the latest nonce.
>
> Risks may differ depending on whether the service is emergency-only or for
> whether it is frequently a participant in signing operations.
>
> -------
>
> Thanks to @LLFOURN for ongoing thoughts, awareness of enrollment
> protocols, and observation that this can all fall back into a standard
> Schnorr signature.
>
> Curious for any thoughts, flaws or expansions upon this idea,
>
> Gist of this post, which I may keep updated and add equations:
> https://gist.github.com/nickfarrow/4be776782bce0c12cca523cbc203fb9d/
>
> Nick
>
> -------
>
> References
>
> * [0] FROST: https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/852.pdf
> * [1] A Survey and Refinement of Repairable Threshold Schemes (Enrollment:
> Section 4.3): https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1155.pdf
> * [2] Modifying FROST Threshold and Signers:
> https://gist.github.com/nickfarrow/64c2e65191cde6a1a47bbd4572bf8cf8/
> * [3] Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant. Customer data not
> compromised:
> https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-search-warrant-customer-data-not-compromised/
> * [4] Blind Schnorr Signatures and Signed ElGamal Encryption in the
> Algebraic Group Model: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/877.pdf
> * [5] FROST in secp256kfun:
> https://docs.rs/schnorr_fun/latest/schnorr_fun/frost/index.html
>
>