On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:22:37AM +0000, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Re-reading your proposed text, I'm wondering if the "consensus-only > validation" extension is intended to replace the > inconclusive-due-to-consensus-and-standardness-differ state. If so, I don't > think it does, and regardless it doesn't seem very useful. > > What I'm suggestion could be specified this way: > * If validator understands the script: > * If signature is consensus valid (as far as the validator knows): > * If signature is not known to trigger standardness rules intended for > future extension (well-defined set of rules listed in BIP, and revisable): > return valid > * Otherwise: return inconclusive > * Otherwise: return invalid > * Otherwise: return inconclusive > > Or in other words: every signature has a well-defined result (valid, invalid, > inconclusive) + validators may choose to report inconclusive for anything > they don't understand. > > This has the property that as long as new consensus rules only change things > that were covered under for-future-extension standardness rules, no two > validators will ever claim valid and invalid for the same signature. Only > valid+inconclusive or invalid+inconclusive. >
I like it! My thinking regarding standardness vs consensus rules was essentially that I wanted to enforce the included standardness rules for anti-malleability reasons, i.e. the hope that for "normal scripts" we would get strong signatures, which may be important for anti-DoS reasons. (What I mean by this is that if you can easily create mutations of signatures, it may confuse software in similar ways to the Gox-era malleability attacks on wallet software of the time.) But conversely, it is hard to enforce these rules as an implementor, because libbitcoinconsensus does not expose them. So allowing both forms of validation, to me, was an attempt to encourage adoption rather than anything principled. I didn't even consider the idea that validators should be able to signal "this signature appears to use future consensus rules", although I should have been clued in by your "upgradeable rules" language that this was your goal. Now that you say this, it's obvious that this is desireable, and also obvious that using the "inconclusive" state is an elegant way to achieve this. I also agree that "confirming validators should never disagree on valid vs invalid" is a good design goal and we should make that explicit. I'll add a commit to my PR at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1048 which adds these thoughts. -- Andrew Poelstra Director of Research, Blockstream Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew The sun is always shining in space -Justin Lewis-Webster
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
