[bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT

Russell O'Connor roconnor at blockstream.io
Thu Dec 13 16:21:10 UTC 2018

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:06 PM Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:50:24PM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:13 PM Johnson Lau <jl2012 at xbt.hk> wrote:
> >     The current proposal is that a 64-byte signature will be used for the
> >     default “signing all” sighash, and 65-byte for other sighash types.
> The
> >     space saved will allow a few more txs in a block, so I think it
> worths
> >     doing. However, this also makes witness weight estimation more
> difficult in
> >     multisig cases.
> This seems strange to me -- why wouldn't you just assume every signature
> is 65 witness bytes, and just be grateful for the prioritisation benefit
> if someone chooses a shorter signature? Your error margin is just 0.25
> vbytes per signature.

The issue is that the proposal is to sign the actual weight, rather than
sign an upper bound on the weight.
The problem with signing an upper bound, is that you need to specify that
upper bound someplace in the transaction, and we are out of sneaky places
to stash that data.
Signing the actual weight is easy because the total weight is implicit, but
now you need to know the total weight before signing.

> > I tend to think in opposite terms. Is there a proof that any script can
> be
> > transformed into an equivalent one that avoids witness weight
> malleability?
> An alternative generalisation: is there a proof that all valid witnesses
> will have a weight within some small range?
> > Moreover, even if witness weight malleability is entirely avoidable, it
> always
> > seems to come at a cost.  Taking as an example libwally's proposed "
> > csv_2of3_then_2" Script, it begins with "OP_DEPTH OP_1SUB OP_1SUB"
> (DEPTH 2 NUMNOTEQUAL seems like it would have been more obvious...)
> I think the 1SUB idea was derived from the csv_2of2_then_1 Script where

> Cheers,
> aj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181213/f03327b9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list