> On 25 May 2019, at 4:59 AM, Jeremy <jlru...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Hi Johnson, > > As noted on the other thread, witness replay-ability can be helped by salting > the taproot key or the taproot leaf script at the last stage of a congestion > control tree. >
The salt will be published when it is first spent. Salting won’t help if the address is reused. > I also think that chaperone signatures should be opt-in; there are cases > where we may not want them. OP_COSHV is compatible with an additional > checksig operation. > > There are also other mechanisms that can improve the safety. Proposed below: > > OP_CHECKINPUTSHASHVERIFY -- allow checking that the hash of the inputs is a > particular value. The top-level of a congestion control tree can check that > the inputs match the desired inputs for that spend, and default to requiring > N of N otherwise. This is replay proof! This is useful for other applications > too. It is circular dependent: the script has to commit to the txid, and the txid is a function of script > > OP_CHECKFEEVERIFY -- allowing an explicit commitment to the exact amount of > fee limits replay to txns which were funded with the exact amount of the > prior. If there's a mismatch, an alternative branch can be used. This is a > generally useful mechanism, but means that transactions using it must have > all inputs/outputs set. > This restricts replayability to input with same value, but is still replay-able, just like ANYPREVOUT committing to the input value > Best, > > Jeremy > -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
