<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Regarding Tapscript, the specification calls for the final value of the stack being a single non-false value:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>The tapscript is executed according to the rules in the following section, with the initial stack as input<br></div><div> II. If the execution results in anything but exactly one element on the stack which evaluates to true with <code>CastToBool()</code>, fail.</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Perhaps it is worth taking this opportunity here to remove a minor wart of the Script language and instead require the stack to be exactly empty upon completion.</div><div><br></div><div>In addition to removing a potential malleability vector, I expect it would simplify development of Bitcoin Script. A rule requiring an empty stack means that the conjunction (logical and) of two policies can be implemented by the simple concatenation of Bitcoin Scripts. This combined with the taproot ability to form the disjunction (logical or) of policies by having multiple Merkle branches, means that the translation of a policy written in disjunctive normal form (the logical ors of logical ands of primitive policies) can be straightforwardly translated to a taproot of tapscript.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, I think the developers of miniscript <<a href="http://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/miniscript.html">http://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/miniscript.html</a>> are in a much better position to comment on whether my above intuition is correct given that they've had to implement a host of various calling conventions. I understand that at least some of this complexity is due to Bitcoin Script's one element stack rule.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Scripts under the old one element rule can be translated to the new rule by adding an OP_VERIFY operation to the end of the script; however it is likely that this OP_VERIFY can be folded into the previous operation yielding an OP_EQUALVERIFY or OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY in many cases.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Even if we choose not to implement the empty stack rule, we should at least require that the last element be 0x01 to remove a potential malleability vector and bring it in line with MINIMAL_IF semantics.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:36 PM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello everyone,<br>
<br>
Here are two BIP drafts that specify a proposal for a Taproot<br>
softfork. A number of ideas are included:<br>
<br>
* Taproot to make all outputs and cooperative spends indistinguishable<br>
from eachother.<br>
* Merkle branches to hide the unexecuted branches in scripts.<br>
* Schnorr signatures enable wallet software to use key<br>
aggregation/thresholds within one input.<br>
* Improvements to the signature hashing algorithm (including signing<br>
all input amounts).<br>
* Replacing OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) with OP_CHECKSIGADD, to support<br>
batch validation.<br>
* Tagged hashing for domain separation (avoiding issues like<br>
CVE-2012-2459 in Merkle trees).<br>
* Extensibility through leaf versions, OP_SUCCESS opcodes, and<br>
upgradable pubkey types.<br>
<br>
The BIP drafts can be found here:<br>
* <a href="https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-taproot.mediawiki" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-taproot.mediawiki</a><br>
specifies the transaction input spending rules.<br>
* <a href="https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-tapscript.mediawiki" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-tapscript.mediawiki</a><br>
specifies the changes to Script inside such spends.<br>
* <a href="https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki</a><br>
is the Schnorr signature proposal that was discussed earlier on this<br>
list (See <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-July/016203.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-July/016203.html</a>)<br>
<br>
An initial reference implementation of the consensus changes, plus<br>
preliminary construction/signing tests in the Python framework can be<br>
found on <a href="https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/taproot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/taproot</a>. All<br>
together, excluding the Schnorr signature module in libsecp256k1, the<br>
consensus changes are around 520 LoC.<br>
<br>
While many other ideas exist, not everything is incorporated. This<br>
includes several ideas that can be implemented separately without loss<br>
of effectiveness. One such idea is a way to integrate SIGHASH_NOINPUT,<br>
which we're working on as an independent proposal.<br>
<br>
The document explains basic wallet operations, such as constructing<br>
outputs and signing. However, a wide variety of more complex<br>
constructions exist. Standardizing these is useful, but out of scope<br>
for now. It is likely also desirable to define extensions to PSBT<br>
(BIP174) for interacting with Taproot. That too is not included here.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Pieter<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>