<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default">Reproduced below is the BIP text from Bitcoin Cash's (MIT-Licensed) specification for "CheckDataSig", more or less the same thing as CHECKSIGFROMSTACK <a href="https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/op_checkdatasig.md">https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/op_checkdatasig.md</a>. In contrast to Element's implementation, it does not have Element's bugs around verify semantics and uses the nullfail rule, and there is a specification document so it seemed like the easiest starting point for discussion v.s. drafting something from scratch.</div><div class="gmail_default"><br>Does anyone have any issue with adapting this exact text and implementation to a BIP for Bitcoin using 2 OP_SUCCESSX opcodes?</div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">Note that with *just* CheckSigFromStack, while you can do some very valuable use cases, but without OP_CAT it does not enable sophisticated covenants (and as per <a href="https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/blog/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-i.html">https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/blog/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-i.html</a> just CAT alone enables such uses).<br><br>Design questions worth considering as modifications:</div><div class="gmail_default"><br>1. Should CSFS require some sort of tagged hash? Very likely answer is no – tags interfere with certain use cases<br>2. Should CSFS split the signature’s R & S value stack items for some applications that otherwise may require OP_CAT? E.g. using a pinned R value allows you to extract a private key if ever double signed, using 2 R values allows pay-to-reveal-key contracts. Most likely answer is no, if that is desired then OP_CAT can be introduced<br>3. Should CSFS support a cheap way to reference the taproot internal or external key? Perhaps, can be handled with undefined upgradeable keytypes. One might want to use the internal key, if the signed data should be valid independent of the tapscript tree. One might want to use the external key, if the data should only be valid for a single tapscript key + tree.<br>4. Should invalid public keys types be a NOP to support future extended pubkey types?</div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br><br></div><div class="gmail_default">Best,<br><br><br>Jeremy<pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;word-wrap:break-word;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre><pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;word-wrap:break-word;white-space:pre-wrap">---
layout: specification
title: OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY Specification
category: spec
date: 2018-08-20
activation: 1542300000
version: 0.6
---
OP_CHECKDATASIG
===============
OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY check whether a signature is valid with respect to a message and a public key.
OP_CHECKDATASIG permits data to be imported into a script, and have its validity checked against some signing authority such as an "Oracle".
OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY are designed to be implemented similarly to OP_CHECKSIG [1]. Conceptually, one could imagine OP_CHECKSIG functionality being replaced by OP_CHECKDATASIG, along with a separate Op Code to create a hash from the transaction based on the SigHash algorithm.
OP_CHECKDATASIG Specification
-----------------------------
### Semantics
OP_CHECKDATASIG fails immediately if the stack is not well formed. To be well formed, the stack must contain at least three elements [`<sig>`, `<msg>`, `<pubKey>`] in this order where `<pubKey>` is the top element and
* `<pubKey>` must be a validly encoded public key
* `<msg>` can be any string
* `<sig>` must follow the strict DER encoding as described in [2] and the S-value of `<sig>` must be at most the curve order divided by 2 as described in [3]
If the stack is well formed, then OP_CHECKDATASIG pops the top three elements [`<sig>`, `<msg>`, `<pubKey>`] from the stack and pushes true onto the stack if `<sig>` is valid with respect to the raw single-SHA256 hash of `<msg>` and `<pubKey>` using the secp256k1 elliptic curve. Otherwise, it pops three elements and pushes false onto the stack in the case that `<sig>` is the empty string and fails in all other cases.
Nullfail is enforced the same as for OP_CHECKSIG [3]. If the signature does not match the supplied public key and message hash, and the signature is not an empty byte array, the entire script fails.
### Opcode Number
OP_CHECKDATASIG uses the previously unused opcode number 186 (0xba in hex encoding)
### SigOps
Signature operations accounting for OP_CHECKDATASIG shall be calculated the same as OP_CHECKSIG. This means that each OP_CHECKDATASIG shall be counted as one (1) SigOp.
### Activation
Use of OP_CHECKDATASIG, unless occuring in an unexecuted OP_IF branch, will make the transaction invalid if it is included in a block where the median timestamp of the prior 11 blocks is less than 1542300000.
### Unit Tests
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` fails if 15 November 2018 protocol upgrade is not yet activated.
- `<sig> <msg> OP_CHECKDATASIG` fails if there are fewer than 3 items on stack.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` fails if `<pubKey>` is not a validly encoded public key.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` fails if `<sig>` is not a validly encoded signature with strict DER encoding.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` fails if signature `<sig>` is not empty and does not pass the Low S check.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` fails if signature `<sig>` is not empty and does not pass signature validation of `<msg>` and `<pubKey>`.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` pops three elements and pushes false onto the stack if `<sig>` is an empty byte array.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIG` pops three elements and pushes true onto the stack if `<sig>` is a valid signature of `<msg>` with respect to `<pubKey>`.
OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY Specification
-----------------------------------
### Semantics
OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY is equivalent to OP_CHECKDATASIG followed by OP_VERIFY. It leaves nothing on the stack, and will cause the script to fail immediately if the signature check does not pass.
### Opcode Number
OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY uses the previously unused opcode number 187 (0xbb in hex encoding)
### SigOps
Signature operations accounting for OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY shall be calculated the same as OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY. This means that each OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY shall be counted as one (1) SigOp.
### Activation
Use of OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY, unless occuring in an unexecuted OP_IF branch, will make the transaction invalid if it is included in a block where the median timestamp of the prior 11 blocks is less than 1542300000.
### Unit Tests
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY` fails if 15 November 2018 protocol upgrade is not yet activated.
- `<sig> <msg> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY` fails if there are fewer than 3 item on stack.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY`fails if `<pubKey>` is not a validly encoded public key.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY` fails if `<sig>` is not a validly encoded signature with strict DER encoding.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY` fails if signature `<sig>` is not empty and does not pass the Low S check.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY` fails if `<sig>` is not a valid signature of `<msg>` with respect to `<pubKey>`.
- `<sig> <msg> <pubKey> OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY` pops the top three stack elements if `<sig>` is a valid signature of `<msg>` with respect to `<pubKey>`.
Sample Implementation [4, 5]
----------------------------
```c++
case OP_CHECKDATASIG:
case OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY: {
// Make sure this remains an error before activation.
if ((flags & SCRIPT_ENABLE_CHECKDATASIG) == 0) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_BAD_OPCODE);
}
// (sig message pubkey -- bool)
if (stack.size() < 3) {
return set_error(
serror, SCRIPT_ERR_INVALID_STACK_OPERATION);
}
valtype &vchSig = stacktop(-3);
valtype &vchMessage = stacktop(-2);
valtype &vchPubKey = stacktop(-1);
if (!CheckDataSignatureEncoding(vchSig, flags,
serror) ||
!CheckPubKeyEncoding(vchPubKey, flags, serror)) {
// serror is set
return false;
}
bool fSuccess = false;
if (vchSig.size()) {
valtype vchHash(32);
CSHA256()
.Write(vchMessage.data(), vchMessage.size())
.Finalize(vchHash.data());
uint256 message(vchHash);
CPubKey pubkey(vchPubKey);
fSuccess = pubkey.Verify(message, vchSig);
}
if (!fSuccess && (flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_NULLFAIL) &&
vchSig.size()) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_SIG_NULLFAIL);
}
popstack(stack);
popstack(stack);
popstack(stack);
stack.push_back(fSuccess ? vchTrue : vchFalse);
if (opcode == OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY) {
if (fSuccess) {
popstack(stack);
} else {
return set_error(serror,
SCRIPT_ERR_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY);
}
}
} break;
```
Sample Usage
------------
The following example shows a spend and redeem script for a basic use of CHECKDATASIG. This example validates the signature of some data, provides a placeholder where you would then process that data, and finally allows one of 2 signatures to spend based on the outcome of the data processing.
### spend script:
```
push txsignature
push txpubkey
push msg
push sig
```
### redeem script:
```
(txsig, txpubkey msg, sig)
OP_OVER (txsig, txpubkey, msg, sig, msg)
push data pubkey (txsig, txpubkey, msg, sig, msg, pubkey)
OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY (txsig, txpubkey, msg)
```
Now that msg is on the stack top, the script can write predicates on it,
resulting in the message being consumed and a true/false condition left on the stack: (txpubkey, txsig, boolean)
```
OP_IF (txsig, txpubkey)
OP_DUP (txsig, txpubkey, txpubkey)
OP_HASH160 (txsig, txpubkey, address)
push <p2pkh spend address> (txsig, txpubkey, address, p2pkh spend address)
OP_EQUALVERIFY (txsig, txpubkey)
OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ELSE
(same as if clause but a different <p2pkh spend address>)
OP_ENDIF
```
History
-------
This specification is based on Andrew Stone’s OP_DATASIGVERIFY proposal [6, 7]. It is modified from Stone's original proposal based on a synthesis of all the peer-review and feedback received [8].
References
----------
[1] [OP_CHECKSIG](<a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG</a>)
[2] [Strict DER Encoding](<a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki</a>)
[3] [Low-S and Nullfail Specification](<a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0146.mediawiki">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0146.mediawiki</a>)
[4] [Bitcoin ABC implementation](<a href="https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D1621">https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D1621</a>)
[5] [Bitcoin ABC implementation update](<a href="https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D1646">https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D1646</a>)
[6] [Andrew Stone’s OP_DATASIGVERIFY](<a href="https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/blob/bucash1.3.0.0/doc/opdatasigverify.md">https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/blob/bucash1.3.0.0/doc/opdatasigverify.md</a>)
[7] [Andrew Stone's article on Scripting](<a href="https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/bitcoin-scripting-applications-decision-based-spending-8e7b93d7bdb9">https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/bitcoin-scripting-applications-decision-based-spending-8e7b93d7bdb9</a>)
[8] [Peer Review of Andrew Stone's Proposal](<a href="https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/10">https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/10</a>)</pre></div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">--<br><a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target="_blank">@JeremyRubin</a><a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target="_blank"></a></div></div></div></div>