OP_SECURETHEBAG (supersedes OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY)

OP_SECURETHEBAG (supersedes OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY)
2019-06-02  5:35 ` ZmnSCPxj
                   ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-06-01  5:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

Hi All,

OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
OP_SECURETHEBAG does more or less the same thing, but fixes malleability
issues and lifts the single output restriction to a known number of inputs
restriction.

OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY had some issues with malleability of version and
locktime. OP_SECURETHEBAG commits to both of these values.

OP_SECURETHEBAG also lifts the restriction that OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY had
to be spent as only a single input, and instead just commits to the number
of inputs. This allows for more flexibility, but keeps it easy to get the
same single output restriction.

BIP:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bips/blob/op-secure-the-bag/bip-secure-the-bag.mediawiki
Implementation: https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/secure_the_bag

A particularly useful topic of discussion is how best to eliminate the
PUSHDATA and treat OP_SECURETHEBAG like a pushdata directly. I thought
about how the interpreter works and is implemented and couldn't come up
with something noninvasive.

Thank you for your review and discussion,

Jeremy

* Plus the name is better

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3438 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-02  5:35 ` 
                   ` 
  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-06-01  5:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

Hi All,

OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
OP_SECURETHEBAG does more or less the same thing, but fixes malleability
issues and lifts the single output restriction to a known number of inputs
restriction.

OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY had some issues with malleability of version and
locktime. OP_SECURETHEBAG commits to both of these values.

OP_SECURETHEBAG also lifts the restriction that OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY had
to be spent as only a single input, and instead just commits to the number
of inputs. This allows for more flexibility, but keeps it easy to get the
same single output restriction.

BIP:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bips/blob/op-secure-the-bag/bip-secure-the-bag.mediawiki
Implementation: https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/secure_the_bag

A particularly useful topic of discussion is how best to eliminate the
PUSHDATA and treat OP_SECURETHEBAG like a pushdata directly. I thought
about how the interpreter works and is implemented and couldn't come up
with something noninvasive.

Thank you for your review and discussion,

Jeremy

* Plus the name is better

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3438 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-01  5:35 [bitcoin-dev] OP_SECURETHEBAG (supersedes OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY) Jeremy
  2019-06-02  5:35 ` ZmnSCPxj

  2019-06-02 21:32   ` Jeremy
  2019-06-05  9:30 ` Anthony Towns
  
From: Russell O'Connor @ 2019-06-02 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
> OP_SECURETHEBAG does more or less the same thing, but fixes malleability
> issues and lifts the single output restriction to a known number of inputs
> restriction.
>
> OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY had some issues with malleability of version and
> locktime. OP_SECURETHEBAG commits to both of these values.
>

Can you elaborate a bit more on what the issues were?


> OP_SECURETHEBAG also lifts the restriction that OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY had
> to be spent as only a single input, and instead just commits to the number
> of inputs. This allows for more flexibility, but keeps it easy to get the
> same single output restriction.
>
> BIP:
> https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bips/blob/op-secure-the-bag/bip-secure-the-bag.mediawiki
> Implementation: https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/secure_the_bag
>
> A particularly useful topic of discussion is how best to eliminate the
> PUSHDATA and treat OP_SECURETHEBAG like a pushdata directly. I thought
> about how the interpreter works and is implemented and couldn't come up
> with something noninvasive.
>

I'm not a Core developer but from what I understand, I'd be inclined to to
treat OP_SECURETHEBAG as with an immediate 32-byte parameter by modifying
GetScriptOp to return the 32-byte parameter through pvchRet.

bool GetScriptOp(CScriptBase::const_iterator& pc,
CScriptBase::const_iterator end, opcodetype& opcodeRet,
std::vector<unsigned char>* pvchRet)
{
    opcodeRet = OP_INVALIDOPCODE;
    if (pvchRet)
        pvchRet->clear();
    if (pc >= end)
        return false;

    // Read instruction
    if (end - pc < 1)
        return false;
    unsigned int opcode = *pc++;

    // Immediate operand
    if (opcode <= OP_PUSHDATA4)
    {
        // ...
    }

    if (opcode == OP_SECURETHEBAG) {
        if (end - pc < 0 || (unsigned int)(end - pc) < 32)
            return false;
        if (pvchRet)
            pvchRet->assign(pc, pc + 32);
        pc += 32;
    }

    opcodeRet = static_cast<opcodetype>(opcode);
    return true;
}

and go from there.

Thank you for your review and discussion,
>
> Jeremy
>
> * Plus the name is better
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6318 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-02 14:32 ` Russell O'Connor

  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-06-02 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell O'Connor;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3403 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Thanks for the response. I double checked my work in drafting my response
and realized I didn't address all the malleability concerns, I believe I
have now (fingers crossed) addressed all points of malleability.

*The malleability concerns are as follows:*

A TXID is computed as:

def txid(self):
         r = b""
         r += struct.pack("<i", self.nVersion)
         r += ser_vector(self.vin)
         r += ser_vector(self.vout)
         r += struct.pack("<I", self.nLockTime)
         return sha256(r)

if the bag hash is just:

def get_bag_hash(self):
         r = b""
         r += ser_vector(self.vout)
         return TaggedHash("BagHash", r)

We allow changing a few things: nVersion, nLockTime, scriptSig (per input),
number of inputs, nSequence (per input) which can change the TXID/what the
transaction does.

changing nVersion: can disable BIP68, change TXID
changing nLockTime: can change TXID
changing nSequence: can change TXID
changing number of inputs: half spend problem, change TXID
changing scriptsigs: change TXID if co-spent with legacy input

Instead, we can use the following digest:

    def get_bag_hash(self):
         r = b""
         r += struct.pack("<i", self.nVersion)
         r += struct.pack("<I", self.nLockTime)
         r += sha256(b"".join(out.serialize() for out in self.vout))
         r += sha256(b"".join(struct.pack("<I", inp.nSequence) for inp in
self.vin))
         r += struct.pack("<Q", len(self.vin))
         for inp in self.vin:
             r += ser_string(inp.scriptSig)
         return TaggedHash("BagHash", r)

which should lock in all the relevant bits. The only part left out is the
COutpoint, which can't be known ahead of time (because it depends on the
creating txn). Technically, len(vin) is redundant with
sha256(b"".join(struct.pack("<I", inp.nSequence) for inp in self.vin)),
because the length padding on the hash implied the number of inputs, but I
figured it's best to err on explicit.

A further benefit (in a CISC sense) of committing to all these values is
that we enforce CLTV and CSV semantics for free on OP_SECURETHEBAG scripts,
which helps with channels.



*Treating OP_SECURETHEBAG as a PUSHDATA:*

I agree in theory it's nicer, and am 100% open to implementing it that way.
The only concern I have with doing it this way is that it means that a
flags must be added to GetOp (or GetOp must be modularized to be per-script
version) because it affects script parsing, as opposed to using a multibyte
opcode which contains a pushdata, which remain compatible with prior script
parsing.

I'd like to get rough consensus on the best approach for compatibility with
downstream software, hence choosing this option for the draft.

Personally, my preference is to *not* do flags and just have a separate
parser version which cleans up some of our past sins. We can experiment
with a fancier parser (as you've shown in Haskell/Rust/Coq), perhaps even
bitwise huffman encoding opcodes to save space on scripts (i.e. the 7 most
common opcodes could fit within 3 bits) or whatever else we like. I just
didn't want to have the scope creep too far on this particular BIP, but I'm
with you that lookahead is a hack compared to an actual parametrized
argument.

I think you'd also appreciate the template script expansion approach
mentioned in the BIP -- it gets around some of these concerns, but requires
changes to Taproot.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9384 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-01  5:35 [bitcoin-dev] OP_SECURETHEBAG (supersedes OP_CHECKOUTPUTSVERIFY) Jeremy
  2019-06-02  5:35 ` ZmnSCPxj
  2019-06-02 14:32 ` Russell O'Connor

  2019-06-06  7:30   ` ZmnSCPxj
  
From: Anthony Towns @ 2019-06-05  9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.

I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
"OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"

FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.

Cheers,
aj



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-05  9:30 ` Anthony Towns

  2019-06-18 20:57     ` Russell O'Connor
  
From: ZmnSCPxj @ 2019-06-06  7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Anthony Towns, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Good morning aj,


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:30 PM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
>
> I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
> with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
> "OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
> consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
> value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
> which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"
>
> FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
> the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
>

I believe in combination with `OP_LEFT` and `OP_CAT` this allows Turing-complete smart contracts, in much the same way as `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`?

Pass in the spent transaction (serialised for txid) and the spending transaction (serialised for sighash) as part of the witness of the spending transaction.

Script verifies that the spending transaction witness value is indeed the spending transaction by `OP_SHA256 <SIGHASH_ALL> OP_SWAP OP_CAT OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY`.
Script verifies the spent transaction witness value is indeed the spent transaction by hashing it, then splitting up the hash with `OP_LEFT` into bytes, and comparing the bytes to the bytes in the input of the spending transaction witness value (txid being the bytes in reversed order).

Then the Script can extract a commitment of itself by extracting the output of the spent transaction.
This lets the Script check that the spending transaction also pays to the same script.

The Script can then access a state value, for example from an `OP_RETURN` output of the spent transaction, and enforce that a correct next-state is used in the spending transaction.
If the state is too large to fit in a standard `OP_RETURN`, then the current state can be passed in as a witness and validated against a hash commitment in an `OP_RETURN` output.

I believe this is the primary reason against not pulling data from the stack.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-06  7:30   ` ZmnSCPxj

  2019-06-20 22:05       ` Anthony Towns
       [not found]       ` <CAD5xwhj8o8Vbrk2KADBOFGfkD3fW3eMZo5aHJytGAj_5LLhYCg@mail.gmail.com>
  
From: Russell O'Connor @ 2019-06-18 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ZmnSCPxj, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3324 bytes --]

Just to be clear, while OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY would enable this style of
covenants if it pulled data from the stack, the OP_SECURETHEBAG probably
cannot create covenants even if it were to pull the data from the stack
unless some OP_TWEEKPUBKEY operation is added to Script because the
"commitment of the script itself" isn't part of the OP_SECURETHEBAG.

So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing any reason
to complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part of the
opcode."

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:33 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Good morning aj,
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:30 PM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > > OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
> >
> > I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
> > with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
> > "OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
> > consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
> > value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
> > which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"
> >
> > FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
> > the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
> >
>
> I believe in combination with `OP_LEFT` and `OP_CAT` this allows
> Turing-complete smart contracts, in much the same way as
> `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`?
>
> Pass in the spent transaction (serialised for txid) and the spending
> transaction (serialised for sighash) as part of the witness of the spending
> transaction.
>
> Script verifies that the spending transaction witness value is indeed the
> spending transaction by `OP_SHA256 <SIGHASH_ALL> OP_SWAP OP_CAT
> OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY`.
> Script verifies the spent transaction witness value is indeed the spent
> transaction by hashing it, then splitting up the hash with `OP_LEFT` into
> bytes, and comparing the bytes to the bytes in the input of the spending
> transaction witness value (txid being the bytes in reversed order).
>
> Then the Script can extract a commitment of itself by extracting the
> output of the spent transaction.
> This lets the Script check that the spending transaction also pays to the
> same script.
>
> The Script can then access a state value, for example from an `OP_RETURN`
> output of the spent transaction, and enforce that a correct next-state is
> used in the spending transaction.
> If the state is too large to fit in a standard `OP_RETURN`, then the
> current state can be passed in as a witness and validated against a hash
> commitment in an `OP_RETURN` output.
>
> I believe this is the primary reason against not pulling data from the
> stack.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4332 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-18 20:57     ` Russell O'Connor

  2019-06-23  6:43         ` Jeremy
       [not found]       ` <CAD5xwhj8o8Vbrk2KADBOFGfkD3fW3eMZo5aHJytGAj_5LLhYCg@mail.gmail.com>
  
From: Anthony Towns @ 2019-06-20 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell O'Connor;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:57:34PM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing any reason to
> complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part of the
> opcode."

Also, I think you can simulate OP_SECURETHEBAG with an ANYPREVOUT
(NOINPUT) sighash (Johnson Lau's mentioned this before, but not sure if
it's been spelled out anywhere); ie instead of constructing

  X = Hash_BagHash( version, locktime, [outputs], [sequences], num_in )

and having the script be "<X> OP_SECURETHEBAG" you calculate an
ANYPREVOUT sighash for SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT | SIGHASH_ALL:

  Y = Hash_TapSighash( 0, 0xc1, version, locktime, [outputs], 0,
                       amount, sequence)

and calculate a signature sig = Schnorr(P,m) for some pubkey P, and
make your script be "<sig> <P> CHECKSIG".

That loses the ability to commit to the number of inputs or restrict
the nsequence of other inputs, and requires a bigger script (sig and P
are ~96 bytes instead of X's 32 bytes), but is otherwise pretty much the
same as far as I can tell. Both scripts are automatically satisfied when
revealed (with the correct set of outputs), and don't need any additional
witness data.

If you wanted to construct "X" via script instead of hardcoding a value
because it got you generalised covenants or whatever; I think you could
get the same effect with CAT,LEFT, and RIGHT: you'd construct Y in much
the same way you construct X, but you'd then need to turn that into a
signature. You could do so by using pubkey P=G and nonce R=G, which
means you need to calculate s=1+hash(G,G,Y)*1 -- calculating the hash
part is easy, multiplying it by 1 is easy, and to add 1 you can probably
do something along the lines of:

    OP_DUP 4 OP_RIGHT 1 OP_ADD OP_SWAP 28 OP_LEFT OP_SWAP OP_CAT

(ie, take the last 4 bytes, increment it using 4-byte arithmetic,
then cat the first 28 bytes and the result. There's overflow issues,
but I think they can be worked around either by allowing you to choose
different locktimes, or by more complicated script)

Cheers,
aj



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-20 22:05       ` Anthony Towns

  2019-07-08 10:26           ` Dmitry Petukhov
  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-06-23  6:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Anthony Towns, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2750 bytes --]

This is insufficient: sequences must be committed to because they affect
TXID. As with scriptsigs (witness data fine to ignore). NUM_IN too.

Any malleability makes this much less useful.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:31 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:57:34PM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> > So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing any
> reason to
> > complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part of the
> > opcode."
>
> Also, I think you can simulate OP_SECURETHEBAG with an ANYPREVOUT
> (NOINPUT) sighash (Johnson Lau's mentioned this before, but not sure if
> it's been spelled out anywhere); ie instead of constructing
>
>   X = Hash_BagHash( version, locktime, [outputs], [sequences], num_in )
>
> and having the script be "<X> OP_SECURETHEBAG" you calculate an
> ANYPREVOUT sighash for SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT | SIGHASH_ALL:
>
>   Y = Hash_TapSighash( 0, 0xc1, version, locktime, [outputs], 0,
>                        amount, sequence)
>
> and calculate a signature sig = Schnorr(P,m) for some pubkey P, and
> make your script be "<sig> <P> CHECKSIG".
>
> That loses the ability to commit to the number of inputs or restrict
> the nsequence of other inputs, and requires a bigger script (sig and P
> are ~96 bytes instead of X's 32 bytes), but is otherwise pretty much the
> same as far as I can tell. Both scripts are automatically satisfied when
> revealed (with the correct set of outputs), and don't need any additional
> witness data.
>
> If you wanted to construct "X" via script instead of hardcoding a value
> because it got you generalised covenants or whatever; I think you could
> get the same effect with CAT,LEFT, and RIGHT: you'd construct Y in much
> the same way you construct X, but you'd then need to turn that into a
> signature. You could do so by using pubkey P=G and nonce R=G, which
> means you need to calculate s=1+hash(G,G,Y)*1 -- calculating the hash
> part is easy, multiplying it by 1 is easy, and to add 1 you can probably
> do something along the lines of:
>
>     OP_DUP 4 OP_RIGHT 1 OP_ADD OP_SWAP 28 OP_LEFT OP_SWAP OP_CAT
>
> (ie, take the last 4 bytes, increment it using 4-byte arithmetic,
> then cat the first 28 bytes and the result. There's overflow issues,
> but I think they can be worked around either by allowing you to choose
> different locktimes, or by more complicated script)
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4010 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
[not found]       ` <CAD5xwhj8o8Vbrk2KADBOFGfkD3fW3eMZo5aHJytGAj_5LLhYCg@mail.gmail.com>

  2019-06-24 14:34         ` Russell O'Connor
  
From: ZmnSCPxj @ 2019-06-23 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy Rubin;  Bitcoin development mailing list

Good morning Jeremy,

While `OP_SECURETHEBAG` commits to the desired output script of the spending TX, what is being referred to here is the ability to verify the output script being spent, i.e. the script that actually contains the `OP_SECURETHEBAG`.
By this, we are able to create a contract that ensures that it is paid again (covenants), which in combination with a little more introspection of TX data, allows us to verify the execution of steps of a Turing-complete program.

It is surprisingly easy to make a language inadvertently Turing-complete, which is basically the argument here,
That is, with just a little more power and some additional operations that would appear reasonable to add by themselves (`OP_CAT`, `OP_LEFT`, `OP_TWEAKPUBKEY`) on top of some form of requiring a particular output script, it is possible to validate the execution of Turing-complete programs on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Thus, with quining (a script which gets the text of its own code as part of the static data it has), `OP_TWEAKPUBKEY`, and a `OP_SECURETHEBAG` that gets its argument from the stack, it will be possible to make Turing-complete Bitcoin SCRIPT.

I would mildly suggest that we might very well want to consider creating a well-designed way of injecting Turing-completeness into Bitcoin SCRIPT (requiring it to be behind a Taproot, so that bugs in Turing-complete code at least have a chance to be bugfixed by agreement of the Taproot signing set) since we might eventually find ourselves introducing it inadvertently later in any case.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 6:41 AM, Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com> wrote:

> Can you clarify this comment?
>
> We do in fact commit to the script and scriptsig itself (not the witness stack) in OP_SECURETHEBAG (unless I'm missing what you meant)?
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 10:59 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Just to be clear, while OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY would enable this style of covenants if it pulled data from the stack, the OP_SECURETHEBAG probably cannot create covenants even if it were to pull the data from the stack unless some OP_TWEEKPUBKEY operation is added to Script because the "commitment of the script itself" isn't part of the OP_SECURETHEBAG.
> >
> > So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode."
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:33 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning aj,
> > >
> > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > >
> > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:30 PM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
> > > >
> > > > I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
> > > > with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
> > > > "OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
> > > > consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
> > > > value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
> > > > which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
> > > > the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe in combination with `OP_LEFT` and `OP_CAT` this allows Turing-complete smart contracts, in much the same way as `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`?
> > >
> > > Pass in the spent transaction (serialised for txid) and the spending transaction (serialised for sighash) as part of the witness of the spending transaction.
> > >
> > > Script verifies that the spending transaction witness value is indeed the spending transaction by `OP_SHA256 <SIGHASH_ALL> OP_SWAP OP_CAT OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY`.
> > > Script verifies the spent transaction witness value is indeed the spent transaction by hashing it, then splitting up the hash with `OP_LEFT` into bytes, and comparing the bytes to the bytes in the input of the spending transaction witness value (txid being the bytes in reversed order).
> > >
> > > Then the Script can extract a commitment of itself by extracting the output of the spent transaction.
> > > This lets the Script check that the spending transaction also pays to the same script.
> > >
> > > The Script can then access a state value, for example from an `OP_RETURN` output of the spent transaction, and enforce that a correct next-state is used in the spending transaction.
> > > If the state is too large to fit in a standard `OP_RETURN`, then the current state can be passed in as a witness and validated against a hash commitment in an `OP_RETURN` output.
> > >
> > > I believe this is the primary reason against not pulling data from the stack.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > ZmnSCPxj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
[not found]       ` <CAD5xwhj8o8Vbrk2KADBOFGfkD3fW3eMZo5aHJytGAj_5LLhYCg@mail.gmail.com>
  2019-06-23 13:11         ` ZmnSCPxj

  2019-06-24 18:07           ` Jeremy
  
From: Russell O'Connor @ 2019-06-24 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy Rubin;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4607 bytes --]

OP_SECURETHEBAG doesn't include the script being executed (i.e the
scriptPubKey specified in the output that is redeemed by this input) in its
hash like ordinary signatures do
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1271>.
Of course, this ScriptPubKey is indirectly committed to through the input's
prevoutpoint.  However Script isn't able to reconstruct this script being
executed from the prevoutpoint in tapscript without an implementation of
public key tweeking in Bitcoin Script.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:41 AM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
wrote:

> Can you clarify this comment?
>
> We do in fact commit to the script and scriptsig itself (not the witness
> stack) in OP_SECURETHEBAG (unless I'm missing what you meant)?
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 10:59 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear, while OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY would enable this style
>> of covenants if it pulled data from the stack, the OP_SECURETHEBAG
>> probably cannot create covenants even if it were to pull the data from the
>> stack unless some OP_TWEEKPUBKEY operation is added to Script because the
>> "commitment of the script itself" isn't part of the OP_SECURETHEBAG.
>>
>> So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing any
>> reason to complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part
>> of the opcode."
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:33 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning aj,
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:30 PM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
>>> >
>>> > I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
>>> > with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
>>> > "OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
>>> > consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new
>>> sighash
>>> > value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
>>> > which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT |
>>> SIGHASH_ALL"
>>> >
>>> > FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
>>> > the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I believe in combination with `OP_LEFT` and `OP_CAT` this allows
>>> Turing-complete smart contracts, in much the same way as
>>> `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`?
>>>
>>> Pass in the spent transaction (serialised for txid) and the spending
>>> transaction (serialised for sighash) as part of the witness of the spending
>>> transaction.
>>>
>>> Script verifies that the spending transaction witness value is indeed
>>> the spending transaction by `OP_SHA256 <SIGHASH_ALL> OP_SWAP OP_CAT
>>> OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY`.
>>> Script verifies the spent transaction witness value is indeed the spent
>>> transaction by hashing it, then splitting up the hash with `OP_LEFT` into
>>> bytes, and comparing the bytes to the bytes in the input of the spending
>>> transaction witness value (txid being the bytes in reversed order).
>>>
>>> Then the Script can extract a commitment of itself by extracting the
>>> output of the spent transaction.
>>> This lets the Script check that the spending transaction also pays to
>>> the same script.
>>>
>>> The Script can then access a state value, for example from an
>>> `OP_RETURN` output of the spent transaction, and enforce that a correct
>>> next-state is used in the spending transaction.
>>> If the state is too large to fit in a standard `OP_RETURN`, then the
>>> current state can be passed in as a witness and validated against a hash
>>> commitment in an `OP_RETURN` output.
>>>
>>> I believe this is the primary reason against not pulling data from the
>>> stack.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> ZmnSCPxj
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7523 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-24 14:34         ` Russell O'Connor

  2019-06-24 18:48             ` Russell O'Connor
  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-06-24 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell O'Connor;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5749 bytes --]

Do you think the following hypothesis is more or less true:

H: There is no set of pure extensions* to script E such that enabling E and
OP_SECURETHEBAG as proposed enables recursive covenants, but E alone does
not enable recursive covenants?

* Of course there are things that specifically are specifically designed to
switch on if OP_SECURETHEBAG, so pure means normal things like OP_CAT that
are a function of the arguments on the stack or hashed txn data.

This is the main draw of the design I proposed, it should be highly
improbable or impossible to accidentally introduce more behavior than
intended with a new opcode.

I think that given that H is not true for the stack reading version of the
opcode, we should avoid doing it unless strongly motivated, so as to permit
more flexibility for which opcodes we can add in the future without
introducing recursion unless it is explicitly intended.



On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 7:35 AM Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream•io>
wrote:

> OP_SECURETHEBAG doesn't include the script being executed (i.e the
> scriptPubKey specified in the output that is redeemed by this input) in its
> hash like ordinary signatures do
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1271>.
> Of course, this ScriptPubKey is indirectly committed to through the input's
> prevoutpoint.  However Script isn't able to reconstruct this script being
> executed from the prevoutpoint in tapscript without an implementation of
> public key tweeking in Bitcoin Script.
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:41 AM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify this comment?
>>
>> We do in fact commit to the script and scriptsig itself (not the witness
>> stack) in OP_SECURETHEBAG (unless I'm missing what you meant)?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 10:59 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to be clear, while OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY would enable this style
>>> of covenants if it pulled data from the stack, the OP_SECURETHEBAG
>>> probably cannot create covenants even if it were to pull the data from the
>>> stack unless some OP_TWEEKPUBKEY operation is added to Script because the
>>> "commitment of the script itself" isn't part of the OP_SECURETHEBAG.
>>>
>>> So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing any
>>> reason to complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part
>>> of the opcode."
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:33 AM ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good morning aj,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>>>
>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:30 PM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
>>>> > with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
>>>> > "OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
>>>> > consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new
>>>> sighash
>>>> > value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the
>>>> hash,
>>>> > which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT |
>>>> SIGHASH_ALL"
>>>> >
>>>> > FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to
>>>> ensure
>>>> > the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I believe in combination with `OP_LEFT` and `OP_CAT` this allows
>>>> Turing-complete smart contracts, in much the same way as
>>>> `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`?
>>>>
>>>> Pass in the spent transaction (serialised for txid) and the spending
>>>> transaction (serialised for sighash) as part of the witness of the spending
>>>> transaction.
>>>>
>>>> Script verifies that the spending transaction witness value is indeed
>>>> the spending transaction by `OP_SHA256 <SIGHASH_ALL> OP_SWAP OP_CAT
>>>> OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY`.
>>>> Script verifies the spent transaction witness value is indeed the spent
>>>> transaction by hashing it, then splitting up the hash with `OP_LEFT` into
>>>> bytes, and comparing the bytes to the bytes in the input of the spending
>>>> transaction witness value (txid being the bytes in reversed order).
>>>>
>>>> Then the Script can extract a commitment of itself by extracting the
>>>> output of the spent transaction.
>>>> This lets the Script check that the spending transaction also pays to
>>>> the same script.
>>>>
>>>> The Script can then access a state value, for example from an
>>>> `OP_RETURN` output of the spent transaction, and enforce that a correct
>>>> next-state is used in the spending transaction.
>>>> If the state is too large to fit in a standard `OP_RETURN`, then the
>>>> current state can be passed in as a witness and validated against a hash
>>>> commitment in an `OP_RETURN` output.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is the primary reason against not pulling data from the
>>>> stack.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> ZmnSCPxj
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9448 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-24 18:07           ` Jeremy

  2019-06-24 22:47               ` Jeremy
  
From: Russell O'Connor @ 2019-06-24 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3682 bytes --]

I suspect that your conjecture is true.  And given that it is plausible
that we would want to add an opcode to tweak public keys, it seems like a
reason design to avoid accidental covenants.
(That said, I strongly prefer that the SECURETHEBAG data be the 32-bytes
immediately following the opcode rather than a OP_PUSHDATA, and I'd be
willing to help code this up (see below)).

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:07 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu> wrote:

> Do you think the following hypothesis is more or less true:
>
> H: There is no set of pure extensions* to script E such that enabling E
> and OP_SECURETHEBAG as proposed enables recursive covenants, but E alone
> does not enable recursive covenants?
>
> * Of course there are things that specifically are specifically designed
> to switch on if OP_SECURETHEBAG, so pure means normal things like OP_CAT
> that are a function of the arguments on the stack or hashed txn data.
>
> This is the main draw of the design I proposed, it should be highly
> improbable or impossible to accidentally introduce more behavior than
> intended with a new opcode.
>
> I think that given that H is not true for the stack reading version of the
> opcode, we should avoid doing it unless strongly motivated, so as to permit
> more flexibility for which opcodes we can add in the future without
> introducing recursion unless it is explicitly intended.
>

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> A particularly useful topic of discussion is how best to eliminate the
> PUSHDATA and treat OP_SECURETHEBAG like a pushdata directly. I thought
> about how the interpreter works and is implemented and couldn't come up
> with something noninvasive.
>

We shouldn't be using the complexity of the changes to the Bitcoin Core a
measure of the complexity of a proposal.  That is looking the issue from
the wrong side.  If we measure the complexity of Script proposals by how
hard it is to change Bitcoin Core, what will happen is more and more of the
incidental details of Bitcoin Core's implementation will be pulled into the
semantics of Script (e.g. the fact that surrounding opcode values are
readily available in Bitcoin Core's particular implementation of its Script
interpreter).  Instead we should use the complexity of how hard it is to
reason about the new Script semantics.

The peeking semantics of OP_SECURETHEBAG is particularly awful because it
more-or-less breaks the fact that Bitcoin Script can be decomposed into
individual units of "opcodes" whose semantics and be individually
described, and it harms the composability of Bitcoin Script where you can
divide the script between any opcodes and the semantics of the
concatenation of those two scripts is simply the composition of the
semantics of the two halves.  (For those interested in formal semantics,
what we have here is a monoid homomorphism from list of opcodes (syntax) to
stack transformation functions (with side-effects) under (Kleisli)
composition (semantics).) Being able to decompose a Bitcoin Script this way
and reasoning about components is how one would reason about Bitcoin Script
in practice.  (Technically the structure is more involved than a list of
opcodes due to OP_IF, and instead you get a railroad diagram
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_diagram>).

Putting the 32 bytes of data required by OP_SECURETHEBAG immediately after
the opcode, like how OP_PUSHDATA* works, is a superior design choice.  It
lets us treat the opcodes and its immediate data as an atomic unit when
reasoning about Script and removes the need to define what happens when
OP_SECURETHEBAG is not followed by an OP_PUSDATA.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4794 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-24 18:48             ` Russell O'Connor

  2019-06-25 17:05                 ` Russell O'Connor
  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-06-24 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell O'Connor;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3277 bytes --]

I agree in principal, but I think that's just a bit of 'how things are'
versus how they should be.

I disagree that we get composability semantics because of OP_IF. E.g., the
script "OP_IF .... " and "OP_END" are two scripts that separately are
invalid as parsed, but together are valid. OP_IF already imposes some
lookahead functionality... but as I understand it, it may be feasible to
get rid of OP_IF for tapscripts anyways. Also in this bucket are P2SH and
segwit, which I think breaks this because the concat of two p2sh scripts or
segwit scripts is not the same as them severally.

I also think that the OP_SECURETHEBAG use of pushdata is a backwards
compatible hack: we can always later redefine the parser to parse
OP_SECURETHEBAG as the 34 byte opcode, recapturing the purity of the
semantics. We can also fix it to not use an extra byte in a future tapleaf
version.

====

In any case, I don't disagree with figuring out what patching the parser to
handle multibyte opcodes would look like. If that sort of upgrade-path were
readily available when I wrote this, it's how I would have done it. There
are two approaches I looked at mostly:

1) Adding flags to GetOp to change how it parses
  a) Most of the same code paths used for new and old script
  b) Higher risk of breaking something in old script style/downstream
  c) Cleans up only one issue (multibyte opcodes) leaves other warts in
place
  d) less bikesheddable design (mostly same as old script)
  e) code not increased in size
2) Adding a completely new interpreter for Tapscript
  a) Fork the existing interpreter code
  b) For all places where scripts are run, switch based on if it is
tapscript or not
  c) Can clean up various semantics, can even do fancier things like
huffman encode opcodes to less than a byte
  d) Can clearly separate parsing the script from executing it
  e) Can improve versioning techniques
  f) Low risk of breaking something in old script style/downstream
  g) Increases amount of code substantially
  h) Bikesheddable design (everything is on the table).
  i) probably a better general mechanism for future changes to script
parsing, less consensus risk
  j) More compatible with templated script as well.

If not clear, I think that 2 is probably a better approach, but I'm worried
that 2.h means this would take a much longer time to implement.

2 can be segmented into two components:

1) the architecture of script parser versioning
2) the actual new script version

I think that component 1 can be relatively non controversial, thankfully,
using tapleaf versions (the architecture question is more around code
structure). A proof of concept of this would be to have a fork that uses
two independent, but identical, script parsers.

Part two of this plan would be to modify one of the versions substantially.
I'm not sure what exists on the laundry list, but I think it would be
possible to pick a few worthwhile cleanups. E.g.:

1) Multibyte opcodes
2) Templated scripts
3) Huffman Encoding opcodes
4) OP_IF handling (maybe just get rid of it in favor of conditional Verify
semantics)

And make it clear that because we can add future script versions fairly
easily, this is a sufficient step.


Does that seem in line with your understanding of how this might be done?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8839 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-24 22:47               ` Jeremy

  
From: Russell O'Connor @ 2019-06-25 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5271 bytes --]

Bitcoin Core is somewhat outside my core competence, but the various
OP_PUSHDATA are already multi-byte opcodes and GetOp already has a data
return parameter that is suitable for returning the payload of an immediate
32-byte data variant of OP_SECURETHEBAG.  All that I expect is needed is to
ensure that nowhere else is using a non-empty data-field as a proxy for a
non-empty push operation and fixing any such occurrences if they exist.
(AFAIKT there are only a handful of calls to GetOp).

It is probably worth updating the tapscript implementation to better
prepare it for new uses of OP_SUCCESSx.  Parsing should halt when an
OP_SUCCESSx is encountered, by having GetScriptOp advance the pc to end
after encountering such a code (decoding Script is no longer meaningful
after an OP_SUCCESS is encountered).  However, that means that GetScriptOp
needs to know what version of script it is expected to be parsing.  This
could be done by sending down some versioning flags, possibly by adding a
versioning field to CScript that can be initialized @
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/blob/7ddc7027b2cbdd11416809400c588e585a8b44ed/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1679
or some other mechanism (and at the same time perhaps having GetSigOpCount
return 0 for tapscript, since counting sigops is not really meaningful in
tapscript). There are probably other reasonable approaches too (e.g your
option 2 below).  I could write some code to illustrate what I'm thinking
if you feel that would be helpful and I do think such changes around
OP_SUCCESS should be implemented regardless of whether we move forward with
OP_SECURETHEBAG or not.

It is probably worth doing this properly the first time around if we are
going to do it at all.

P.S. OP_RESERVED1 has been renamed to OP_SUCCESS137 in bip-tapscript.


>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:47 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu> wrote:

> I agree in principal, but I think that's just a bit of 'how things are'
> versus how they should be.
>
> I disagree that we get composability semantics because of OP_IF. E.g., the
> script "OP_IF .... " and "OP_END" are two scripts that separately are
> invalid as parsed, but together are valid. OP_IF already imposes some
> lookahead functionality... but as I understand it, it may be feasible to
> get rid of OP_IF for tapscripts anyways. Also in this bucket are P2SH and
> segwit, which I think breaks this because the concat of two p2sh scripts or
> segwit scripts is not the same as them severally.
>
> I also think that the OP_SECURETHEBAG use of pushdata is a backwards
> compatible hack: we can always later redefine the parser to parse
> OP_SECURETHEBAG as the 34 byte opcode, recapturing the purity of the
> semantics. We can also fix it to not use an extra byte in a future tapleaf
> version.
>

> In any case, I don't disagree with figuring out what patching the parser
> to handle multibyte opcodes would look like. If that sort of upgrade-path
> were readily available when I wrote this, it's how I would have done it.
> There are two approaches I looked at mostly:
>
> 1) Adding flags to GetOp to change how it parses
>   a) Most of the same code paths used for new and old script
>   b) Higher risk of breaking something in old script style/downstream
>   c) Cleans up only one issue (multibyte opcodes) leaves other warts in
> place
>   d) less bikesheddable design (mostly same as old script)
>   e) code not increased in size
> 2) Adding a completely new interpreter for Tapscript
>   a) Fork the existing interpreter code
>   b) For all places where scripts are run, switch based on if it is
> tapscript or not
>   c) Can clean up various semantics, can even do fancier things like
> huffman encode opcodes to less than a byte
>   d) Can clearly separate parsing the script from executing it
>   e) Can improve versioning techniques
>   f) Low risk of breaking something in old script style/downstream
>   g) Increases amount of code substantially
>   h) Bikesheddable design (everything is on the table).
>   i) probably a better general mechanism for future changes to script
> parsing, less consensus risk
>   j) More compatible with templated script as well.
>
> If not clear, I think that 2 is probably a better approach, but I'm
> worried that 2.h means this would take a much longer time to implement.
>
> 2 can be segmented into two components:
>
> 1) the architecture of script parser versioning
> 2) the actual new script version
>
> I think that component 1 can be relatively non controversial, thankfully,
> using tapleaf versions (the architecture question is more around code
> structure). A proof of concept of this would be to have a fork that uses
> two independent, but identical, script parsers.
>
> Part two of this plan would be to modify one of the versions
> substantially. I'm not sure what exists on the laundry list, but I think it
> would be possible to pick a few worthwhile cleanups. E.g.:
>
> 1) Multibyte opcodes
> 2) Templated scripts
> 3) Huffman Encoding opcodes
> 4) OP_IF handling (maybe just get rid of it in favor of conditional Verify
> semantics)
>
> And make it clear that because we can add future script versions fairly
> easily, this is a sufficient step.
>
>
> Does that seem in line with your understanding of how this might be done?
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10622 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-23  6:43         ` Jeremy

  2019-10-03 23:22             ` Jeremy
  
From: Dmitry Petukhov @ 2019-07-08 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

If you make ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT signature not the only signature that
controls this UTXO, but use it solely for restricting the spending
conditions such as the set of outputs, and require another signature
that would commit to the whole transaction, you can eliminate
malleability, for the price of additional signature, of course.

<control-sig> <control-P> CHECKSIG <P> CHECKSIG

(CHECKMULTISIG/CHECKSIGADD might be used instead)

where control-P can even be a pubkey of a key that is publicly known,
and the whole purpose of control-sig would be to restrict the outputs
(control-sig would be created with flags meaning ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT).
Because control-sig does not depend on the script and on the current
input, there should be no circular dependency, and it can be part of
the redeem script.

P would be the pubkey of the actual key that is needed to spend this
UTXO, and the signature of P can commit to all the inputs and outputs,
preventing malleability.

I would like to add that it may make sense to just have 2 additional
flags for sighash: NOPREVOUT and NOSCRIPT.

NOPREVOUT would mean that previous output is not committed to, and when
combined with ANYONECANPAY, this will mean ANYPREVOUT/NOINPUT:
ANYONECANPAY means exclude all inputs except the current, and NOPREVOUT
means exclude the current input. Thus NOPREVOUT|ANYONECANPAY = NOINPUT

With NOPREVOUT|ANYONECANPAY|NOSCRIPT you would have ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT

with NOPREVOUT|NOSCRIPT you can commit to "all the inputs beside the
current one", which would allow to create a spending restriction like
"this UTXO, and also one (or more) other UTXO", which might be useful
to retroactively revoke or transfer the rights to spend certain UTXO
without actually moving it:

think 'vault' UTXO that is controlled by Alice, but requires additional
'control' UTXO to spend. Alice have keys for both 'vault' UTXO, and
'control' UTXO, but Bob have only key for 'control' UTXO.

If Bob learnsthat Alice's vault UTXO key is at risk of compromize,
he spends the control UTXO, and then Alice's ability to spend vault
UTXO vanishes.

You can use this mechanism to transfer this right to spend if you
prepare a number of taproot branches with different pairs of (vault,
control) keys and a chain of transactions that each spend the previous
control UTXO such that the newly created UTXO becomes controlled by the
control key of the next pair, together with vault key in that pair.

В Sat, 22 Jun 2019 23:43:22 -0700
Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> This is insufficient: sequences must be committed to because they
> affect TXID. As with scriptsigs (witness data fine to ignore). NUM_IN
> too.
> 
> Any malleability makes this much less useful.
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:31 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:57:34PM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:  
> > > So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing
> > > any  
> > reason to  
> > > complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part
> > > of the opcode."  
> >
> > Also, I think you can simulate OP_SECURETHEBAG with an ANYPREVOUT
> > (NOINPUT) sighash (Johnson Lau's mentioned this before, but not
> > sure if it's been spelled out anywhere); ie instead of constructing
> >
> >   X = Hash_BagHash( version, locktime, [outputs], [sequences],
> > num_in )
> >
> > and having the script be "<X> OP_SECURETHEBAG" you calculate an
> > ANYPREVOUT sighash for SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT | SIGHASH_ALL:
> >
> >   Y = Hash_TapSighash( 0, 0xc1, version, locktime, [outputs], 0,
> >                        amount, sequence)
> >
> > and calculate a signature sig = Schnorr(P,m) for some pubkey P, and
> > make your script be "<sig> <P> CHECKSIG".
> >
> > That loses the ability to commit to the number of inputs or restrict
> > the nsequence of other inputs, and requires a bigger script (sig
> > and P are ~96 bytes instead of X's 32 bytes), but is otherwise
> > pretty much the same as far as I can tell. Both scripts are
> > automatically satisfied when revealed (with the correct set of
> > outputs), and don't need any additional witness data.
> >
> > If you wanted to construct "X" via script instead of hardcoding a
> > value because it got you generalised covenants or whatever; I think
> > you could get the same effect with CAT,LEFT, and RIGHT: you'd
> > construct Y in much the same way you construct X, but you'd then
> > need to turn that into a signature. You could do so by using pubkey
> > P=G and nonce R=G, which means you need to calculate
> > s=1+hash(G,G,Y)*1 -- calculating the hash part is easy, multiplying
> > it by 1 is easy, and to add 1 you can probably do something along
> > the lines of:
> >
> >     OP_DUP 4 OP_RIGHT 1 OP_ADD OP_SWAP 28 OP_LEFT OP_SWAP OP_CAT
> >
> > (ie, take the last 4 bytes, increment it using 4-byte arithmetic,
> > then cat the first 28 bytes and the result. There's overflow issues,
> > but I think they can be worked around either by allowing you to
> > choose different locktimes, or by more complicated script)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > aj
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >  



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-07-08 10:26           ` Dmitry Petukhov

  
From: Jeremy @ 2019-10-03 23:22 UTC ( / )
  To: Dmitry Petukhov;  Bitcoin development mailing list



I've updated the BIP to no longer be based on Taproot, and instead based on
a OP_NOP upgrade. The example implementation and tests have also been
updated.

BIP:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bips/blob/op-secure-the-bag/bip-secure-the-bag.mediawiki
Implementation:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:securethebag_master

The BIP defines OP_NOP4 with the same semantics as previously presented.
This enables OP_SECURETHEBAG for segwit and bare script, but not p2sh
(because of hash cycle, it's impossible to put the redeemscript on the
scriptSig without changing the bag hash). The implementation also makes a
bare OP_SECURETHEBAG script standard as that is a common use case.

To address Russel's feedback, once Tapscript is fully prepared (with more
thorough script parsing improvements), multibyte opcodes can be more
cleanly specified.

Best,

Jeremy

n.b. the prior BIP version remains at
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bips/blob/op-secure-the-bag-taproot/bip-secure-the-bag.mediawiki
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:25 AM Dmitry Petukhov <dp@simplexum•com> wrote:

> If you make ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT signature not the only signature that
> controls this UTXO, but use it solely for restricting the spending
> conditions such as the set of outputs, and require another signature
> that would commit to the whole transaction, you can eliminate
> malleability, for the price of additional signature, of course.
>
> <control-sig> <control-P> CHECKSIG <P> CHECKSIG
>
> (CHECKMULTISIG/CHECKSIGADD might be used instead)
>
> where control-P can even be a pubkey of a key that is publicly known,
> and the whole purpose of control-sig would be to restrict the outputs
> (control-sig would be created with flags meaning ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT).
> Because control-sig does not depend on the script and on the current
> input, there should be no circular dependency, and it can be part of
> the redeem script.
>
> P would be the pubkey of the actual key that is needed to spend this
> UTXO, and the signature of P can commit to all the inputs and outputs,
> preventing malleability.
>
> I would like to add that it may make sense to just have 2 additional
> flags for sighash: NOPREVOUT and NOSCRIPT.
>
> NOPREVOUT would mean that previous output is not committed to, and when
> combined with ANYONECANPAY, this will mean ANYPREVOUT/NOINPUT:
> ANYONECANPAY means exclude all inputs except the current, and NOPREVOUT
> means exclude the current input. Thus NOPREVOUT|ANYONECANPAY = NOINPUT
>
> With NOPREVOUT|ANYONECANPAY|NOSCRIPT you would have ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT
>
> with NOPREVOUT|NOSCRIPT you can commit to "all the inputs beside the
> current one", which would allow to create a spending restriction like
> "this UTXO, and also one (or more) other UTXO", which might be useful
> to retroactively revoke or transfer the rights to spend certain UTXO
> without actually moving it:
>
> think 'vault' UTXO that is controlled by Alice, but requires additional
> 'control' UTXO to spend. Alice have keys for both 'vault' UTXO, and
> 'control' UTXO, but Bob have only key for 'control' UTXO.
>
> If Bob learnsthat Alice's vault UTXO key is at risk of compromize,
> he spends the control UTXO, and then Alice's ability to spend vault
> UTXO vanishes.
>
> You can use this mechanism to transfer this right to spend if you
> prepare a number of taproot branches with different pairs of (vault,
> control) keys and a chain of transactions that each spend the previous
> control UTXO such that the newly created UTXO becomes controlled by the
> control key of the next pair, together with vault key in that pair.
>
> В Sat, 22 Jun 2019 23:43:22 -0700
> Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > This is insufficient: sequences must be committed to because they
> > affect TXID. As with scriptsigs (witness data fine to ignore). NUM_IN
> > too.
> >
> > Any malleability makes this much less useful.
> > --
> > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:31 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:57:34PM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> > > > So with regards to OP_SECURETHEBAG, I am also "not really seeing
> > > > any
> > > reason to
> > > > complicate the spec to ensure the digest is precommitted as part
> > > > of the opcode."
> > >
> > > Also, I think you can simulate OP_SECURETHEBAG with an ANYPREVOUT
> > > (NOINPUT) sighash (Johnson Lau's mentioned this before, but not
> > > sure if it's been spelled out anywhere); ie instead of constructing
> > >
> > >   X = Hash_BagHash( version, locktime, [outputs], [sequences],
> > > num_in )
> > >
> > > and having the script be "<X> OP_SECURETHEBAG" you calculate an
> > > ANYPREVOUT sighash for SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT | SIGHASH_ALL:
> > >
> > >   Y = Hash_TapSighash( 0, 0xc1, version, locktime, [outputs], 0,
> > >                        amount, sequence)
> > >
> > > and calculate a signature sig = Schnorr(P,m) for some pubkey P, and
> > > make your script be "<sig> <P> CHECKSIG".
> > >
> > > That loses the ability to commit to the number of inputs or restrict
> > > the nsequence of other inputs, and requires a bigger script (sig
> > > and P are ~96 bytes instead of X's 32 bytes), but is otherwise
> > > pretty much the same as far as I can tell. Both scripts are
> > > automatically satisfied when revealed (with the correct set of
> > > outputs), and don't need any additional witness data.
> > >
> > > If you wanted to construct "X" via script instead of hardcoding a
> > > value because it got you generalised covenants or whatever; I think
> > > you could get the same effect with CAT,LEFT, and RIGHT: you'd
> > > construct Y in much the same way you construct X, but you'd then
> > > need to turn that into a signature. You could do so by using pubkey
> > > P=G and nonce R=G, which means you need to calculate
> > > s=1+hash(G,G,Y)*1 -- calculating the hash part is easy, multiplying
> > > it by 1 is easy, and to add 1 you can probably do something along
> > > the lines of:
> > >
> > >     OP_DUP 4 OP_RIGHT 1 OP_ADD OP_SWAP 28 OP_LEFT OP_SWAP OP_CAT
> > >
> > > (ie, take the last 4 bytes, increment it using 4-byte arithmetic,
> > > then cat the first 28 bytes and the result. There's overflow issues,
> > > but I think they can be worked around either by allowing you to
> > > choose different locktimes, or by more complicated script)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > aj
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > >
>
>