Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput

[Christian Decker]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:34:58AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > The big concern I have with _NOINPUT is that it has a huge failure
>> > case: if you use the same key for multiple inputs and sign one of them
>> > with _NOINPUT, you've spent all of them. The current proposal kind-of
>> > limits the potential damage by still committing to the prevout amount,
>> > but it still seems a big risk for all the people that reuse addresses,
>> > which seems to be just about everyone.
>> If I can convince you to sign with SIGHASH_NONE, it's already a problem
>> today.
>
> So, I don't find that very compelling: "there's already a way to lose
> your money, so it's fine to add other ways to lose your money". And
> again, I think NOINPUT is worse here, because a SIGHASH_NONE signature
> only lets others take the coin you're trying to spend, messing up when
> using NOINPUT can cause you to lose other coins as well (with caveats).

`SIGHASH_NOINPUT` is a rather powerful tool, but has to be used
responsibly, which is why we always mention that it shouldn't be used
lightly. Then again all sighash flags can be dangerous if not well
understood. Think for example `SIGHASH_SINGLE` with it's pitfall when
the input has no matching output, or the already mentioned SIGHASH_NONE.

>From a technical, and risk, point of view I don't think there is much
difference between a new opcode or a new sighash flag, with the
activation being the one exception. I personally believe that a segwit
script bump has cleaner semantics than soft-forking in a new opcode
(which has 90% overlap with the existing checksig and checkmultisig
opcodes).

>> [...]
>> In a world where SIGHASH_NONE didn't exist, this might be an argument :)
>
> I could see either dropping support for SIGHASH_NONE for segwit
> v1 addresses, or possibly limiting SIGHASH_NONE in a similar way to
> limiting SIGHASH_NOINPUT. Has anyone dug through the blockchain to see
> if SIGHASH_NONE is actually used/useful?

That's a good point, I'll try looking for it once I get back to my full
node :-) And yes, `SIGHASH_NONE` should also come with all the warning
signs about not using it without a very good reason.

>> That was also suggested by Mark Friedenbach, but I think we'll end up
>> with more "magic key" a-la Schnorr/taproot/graftroot and less script in
>> future.
>
> Taproot and graftroot aren't "less script" at all -- if anything they're
> the opposite in that suddenly every address can have a script path.
> I think NOINPUT has pretty much the same tradeoffs as taproot/graftroot
> scripts: in the normal case for both you just use a SIGHASH_ALL
> signature to spend your funds; in the abnormal case for NOINPUT, you use
> a SIGHASH_NOINPUT (multi)sig for unilateral eltoo closes or watchtower
> penalties, in the abnormal case for taproot/graftroot you use a script.

That's true for today's uses of `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` and others, but there
might be other uses that we don't know about in which noinput isn't just
used for the contingency, handwavy I know. That's probably not the case
for graftroot/taproot, but I'm happy to be corrected on that one.

Still, these opcodes and hash flags being mainly used for contingencies,
doesn't remove the need for these contingency options to be enforced
on-chain.

>> That means we'd actually want a different Segwit version for
>> "NOINPUT-can-be-used", which seems super ugly.
>
> That's backwards. If you introduce a new opcode, you can use the existing
> segwit version, rather than needing segwit v1. You certainly don't need
> v1 segwit for regular coins and v2 segwit for NOINPUT coins, if that's
> where you were going?
>
> For segwit v0, that would mean your addresses for a key "X", might be:
>
>[pubkey]  X
> - not usable with NOINPUT
>[script]  2 X Y 2 CHECKMULTISIG
> - not usable with NOINPUT
>[script]  2 X Y 2 CHECKMULTISIG_1USE_VERIFY
> - usable with NOINPUT (or SIGHASH_ALL)
>
> CHECKMULTISIG_1USE_VERIFY being soft-forked in by replacing an OP_NOP,
> of course. Any output spendable via a NOINPUT signature would then have
> had to have been deliberately created as being spendable by NOINPUT.

The main reason I went for the sighash flag instead of an opcode is that
it has clean semantics, allows for it to be bundled with a number of
other upgrades, and doesn't use up NOP-codes, which I was lectured
for my normalized tx BIP (BIP140) is a rare resource that should be used
sparingly. The `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` proposal is minimal, since it enhances
4 existing opcodes. If we were to do that with new opcodes we'd either
want a multisig and a singlesig variant, potentially with a verify
variant each. That's a lot of opcodes.

The proposal being minimal should also help against everybody trying to
get their favorite feature added, and hopefully streamline the
discussion.

> For a new segwit version with taproot that likewise includes an opcode,
> that might be:
>
>[taproot]  X
> - 

Re: [Lightning-dev] Receiving via unpublished channels

[ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev]

Good morning nayuto-ueno,

> `r` field doesn't contain signature like `channel_update`.
> 
> Do c-lightning check something in the `r` field from payee's invoice?
> 

No.  Invoice has signature for whole invoice.  Of course, only payee signature 
(fee of this channel is fee from the peer of the payee, e.g. hub).

Payee has incentive to give accurate information about the channel.  Otherwise 
payment may fail if the channel fees or CLTV-delta, is not same as wanted by 
the peer of the payee.  So only payee signature should be enough; if payee 
gives bad information about this channel, payee loses on getting paid.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev