Re: [bitcoin-dev] Full Disclosure: CVE-2023-40231 / CVE-2023-40232 / CVE-2023-40233 / CVE-2023-40234 "All your mempool are belong to us"

2023-10-21 Thread Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
Hi, As I've been shown offline Twitter posts misrepresenting my previous mail, I think it's good to correct them. The security flaws are not "intentional backdoor" or whatever misrepresentation that would question the competence and know-how of the Bitcoin and Lightning development community.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP for OP_CAT

2023-10-21 Thread Ethan Heilman via bitcoin-dev
Hi Greg, I didn't mean to imply this limit is a unique feature of tapescript, but rather that:OP_CAT is a tapscript opcode and that tapscript enforces a 520 byte element size thus we don't have to worry about OP_CAT creating very large stack elements. Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP for OP_CAT

2023-10-21 Thread Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev
> This is no longer an issue in the current age as tapscript enforces a maximum stack element size of 520 Bytes. I don't think there's a new limit related to tapscript? In the very beginning there was no limit, but a 5k limit was put into place, then 520 the same commit that OP_CAT was disabled:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP for OP_CAT

2023-10-21 Thread Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 01:08:03AM -0400, Ethan Heilman via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We've posted a draft BIP to propose enabling OP_CAT as Tapscript opcode. > https://github.com/EthanHeilman/op_cat_draft/blob/main/cat.mediawiki > > OP_CAT was available in early versions of Bitcoin.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Breaking change in calculation of hash_serialized_2

2023-10-21 Thread Fabian via bitcoin-dev
Hi Peter, to my knowledge, this was never considered as an option previously (James correct me if I am wrong). At least I couldn't find any reference to that in the original proposal [1] and I can not remember it being discussed since I have followed the project more closely (ca. 2020). Here

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP for OP_CAT

2023-10-21 Thread alicexbt via bitcoin-dev
Hi Ethan, > [2]: P. Wuille, "Multisig on steroids using tree signatures", 2015, > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019233.html Correct link for "Multisig on steroids using tree signatures": https://blog.blockstream.com/en-treesignatures/ /dev/fd0 floppy disk

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_Expire and Coinbase-Like Behavior: Making HTLCs Safer by Letting Transactions Expire Safely

2023-10-21 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:58:32PM -1000, David A. Harding wrote: > On 2023-10-20 14:09, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > The basic problem here is after the HTLC-timeout path becomes spendable, > > the > > HTLC-preimage path remains spendable. That's bad, because in this case > > we want > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_Expire and Coinbase-Like Behavior: Making HTLCs Safer by Letting Transactions Expire Safely

2023-10-21 Thread David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
On 2023-10-20 14:09, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: The basic problem here is after the HTLC-timeout path becomes spendable, the HTLC-preimage path remains spendable. That's bad, because in this case we want spending the HTLC-preimage - if possible - to have an urgency attached to it to