[bitcoin-dev] Taproot proposal
roconnor at blockstream.io
Thu May 23 02:32:26 UTC 2019
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:06 PM Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 10:20, Russell O'Connor <roconnor at blockstream.io>
> > Regarding Tapscript, the specification calls for the final value of the
> stack being a single non-false value:
> >> The tapscript is executed according to the rules in the following
> section, with the initial stack as input
> >> II. If the execution results in anything but exactly one element on
> the stack which evaluates to true with CastToBool(), fail.
> > 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.
> > 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
> > That said, I think the developers of miniscript <
> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/miniscript.html> 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.
> IIRC I looked into this a few months ago, and found that the spending
> cost (script size + expected witness size) of the optimal script for
> every Miniscript policy at most changes by 1 WU (in either direction)
> by requiring an empty stack rather than a true value, though in a
> (admittedly very arbitrarily biased) distribution, more policies were
> improved by it than degraded. This is not taking Taproot into account
> (as many of those policies in a Taproot-supporting world should
> optimally make use of the internal key and Merkle tree, rather than
> turning everything into a monolithic script). I expect that this may
> make the impact somewhat larger, but still never more than a 1 WU
> I don't think the spending cost changes justify this change, so the
> remaining criteria are complexity ones. In my view, the main benefit
> would be to authors of hand-written scripts where the consistency
> benefits matter, but this needs to be weighed against the mental cost
> of learning the new semantics. For Miniscript itself, this doesn't
> make much difference - the top level calling convention would become
> 'V' instead of 'T', but 'T' would still exist as a calling convention
> that may be used internally; it's a few lines change.
> So overall this feels like something with marginal costs, but also at
> most marginal benefits. Perhaps other people have stronger opinions.
Thanks for the info. I'm surprised to learn that 'T' would still exist
internally. That does make my proposed ammendment a somewhat more marginal
than I expected. I still think it would be an improvement, but I guess it
is acceptable the way it is if that is what other people prefer.
> > 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.
> This feels like the right thing to do; as we're making MINIMALIF part
> of consensus for Tapscript it would make sense to apply the same rule
> to the "return" value of the script. There is a downside though,
> namely that in some places where you'd use "<n>
> OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY" or "<n> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY" you now need
> to add an additional OP_0NOTEQUAL to convert the left-over element n
> into an exact 0x01. I also can't come up with any practical benefits
> that this would have; if the top stack element in a particular code
> path comes directly from the input, it's insecure regardless; if there
> isn't, it'll generally be a a boolean (or an intentional non-boolean
> true value) computed by the script.
That is a very good argument. If we were to go with an empty stack we'd
probably also want modify to have CSV and CLTV pop their inputs off the
stack. But at that point perhaps we'd want to change their opcode values
to avoid confusion with old style script. I guess I'm getting more
convinced to not touch this stuff just and just bear with the somewhat
unfortunate legacy behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev