š
Original date posted:2023-02-08
šļø Summary of this message: A bug in Taproot allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times, incurring different Tapfee rates. The countermeasure is to know the entire Taptree.
š Original message:Hi Andrew
> There is a bug in Taproot that allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times in the same Taproot, potentially at different Taplevels incurring different Tapfee rates.
>> The countermeasure is that you should always know the entire Taptree when interacting with someone's Tapspend.
I wouldn't say it is a "bug" unless there is a remedy for the bug that wasn't (and retrospectively should have been) included in the Taproot design. In retrospect and assuming you could redesign the Taproot consensus rules again today would you prevent spending from a valid P2TR address if a repeated Tapleaf hash was used to prove that a spending path was embedded in a Taproot tree? That's the only thing I can think of to attempt to remedy this "bug" and it would only be a partial protection as proving a spending path exists within a Taproot tree only requires a subset of the Tapleaf hashes.
I only point this out because there seems to be a push to find "bugs" and "accidental blowups" in the Taproot design currently. No problem with this if there are any, they should definitely be highlighted and discussed if they do exist. The nearest to a possible inferior design decision thus far that I'm aware of is x-only pubkeys in BIP340 [0].
Thanks
Michael
[0]: https://btctranscripts.com/london-bitcoin-devs/2022-08-11-tim-ruffing-musig2/#a-retrospective-look-at-bip340
--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, February 7th, 2023 at 18:35, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> There is a bug in Taproot that allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times in the same Taproot, potentially at different Taplevels incurring different Tapfee rates.
>
> The countermeasure is that you should always know the entire Taptree when interacting with someone's Tapspend.
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:10 PM Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Some people highlighted some minor problems with my last email:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:46:22PM +0000, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> [1] https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/
>>> [2] In Taproot, if you want to prevent signatures migrating to another
>>> branch or within a branch, you can use the CODESEPARATOR opcode
>>> which was redisegned in Taproot for exactly this purpose... we
>>> really did about witness malleation in its design!
>>
>> In Taproot the tapleaf hash is always covered by the signature (though
>> not in some ANYONECANPAY proposals) so you can never migrate signatures
>> between tapbranches.
>>
>> I had thought this was the case, but then I re-confused myself by
>> reading BIP 341 .... which has much of the sighash specified, but not
>> all of it! The tapleaf hash is added in BIP 342.
>>
>>>
>>> If you want to prevent signatures from moving around *within* a
>>> branch,
>>>
>>
>> And this sentence I just meant to delete :)
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230208/6a71e08e/attachment.html>;
Michael Folkson [ARCHIVE] /
npub103ā¦2kpam
2023-06-07 23:19:27
in reply to nevent1qā¦p0gs
Author Public Key
npub103ycruxnchhvja33mcnnkfdkgd0s7vlqlfkvufcdm5lnhpuh6f4q82kpamPublished at
2023-06-07 23:19:27Event JSON
{
"id": "f826c19903091cbb57cde469a39b8a14d0aa16a70118bf1b28df029c4d02672d",
"pubkey": "7c4981f0d3c5eec97631de273b25b6435f0f33e0fa6cce270ddd3f3b8797d26a",
"created_at": 1686179967,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1cb271826c48de88a6304ac8ffedd6340167a6ad4b82c11ba779c915dfc4192e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2e76c281c2fe0b58a7aa2f66fafdf0dc18b581aec9c3e2a5e8d5a9b796c5f4d9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2023-02-08\nšļø Summary of this message: A bug in Taproot allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times, incurring different Tapfee rates. The countermeasure is to know the entire Taptree.\nš Original message:Hi Andrew\n\n\u003e There is a bug in Taproot that allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times in the same Taproot, potentially at different Taplevels incurring different Tapfee rates.\n\u003e\u003e The countermeasure is that you should always know the entire Taptree when interacting with someone's Tapspend.\n\nI wouldn't say it is a \"bug\" unless there is a remedy for the bug that wasn't (and retrospectively should have been) included in the Taproot design. In retrospect and assuming you could redesign the Taproot consensus rules again today would you prevent spending from a valid P2TR address if a repeated Tapleaf hash was used to prove that a spending path was embedded in a Taproot tree? That's the only thing I can think of to attempt to remedy this \"bug\" and it would only be a partial protection as proving a spending path exists within a Taproot tree only requires a subset of the Tapleaf hashes.\n\nI only point this out because there seems to be a push to find \"bugs\" and \"accidental blowups\" in the Taproot design currently. No problem with this if there are any, they should definitely be highlighted and discussed if they do exist. The nearest to a possible inferior design decision thus far that I'm aware of is x-only pubkeys in BIP340 [0].\n\nThanks\nMichael\n\n[0]: https://btctranscripts.com/london-bitcoin-devs/2022-08-11-tim-ruffing-musig2/#a-retrospective-look-at-bip340\n\n--\nMichael Folkson\nEmail: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)\nKeybase: michaelfolkson\nPGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\n\n------- Original Message -------\nOn Tuesday, February 7th, 2023 at 18:35, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e There is a bug in Taproot that allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times in the same Taproot, potentially at different Taplevels incurring different Tapfee rates.\n\u003e\n\u003e The countermeasure is that you should always know the entire Taptree when interacting with someone's Tapspend.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:10 PM Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Some people highlighted some minor problems with my last email:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:46:22PM +0000, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003csnip\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e [1] https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/\n\u003e\u003e\u003e [2] In Taproot, if you want to prevent signatures migrating to another\n\u003e\u003e\u003e branch or within a branch, you can use the CODESEPARATOR opcode\n\u003e\u003e\u003e which was redisegned in Taproot for exactly this purpose... we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e really did about witness malleation in its design!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In Taproot the tapleaf hash is always covered by the signature (though\n\u003e\u003e not in some ANYONECANPAY proposals) so you can never migrate signatures\n\u003e\u003e between tapbranches.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I had thought this was the case, but then I re-confused myself by\n\u003e\u003e reading BIP 341 .... which has much of the sighash specified, but not\n\u003e\u003e all of it! The tapleaf hash is added in BIP 342.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e If you want to prevent signatures from moving around *within* a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e branch,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e And this sentence I just meant to delete :)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Andrew Poelstra\n\u003e\u003e Director of Research, Blockstream\n\u003e\u003e Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net\n\u003e\u003e Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The sun is always shining in space\n\u003e\u003e -Justin Lewis-Webster\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230208/6a71e08e/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "cc6baf1f61fca584e0add45648208cf1bd462b907bc3c5c643bc4c970cc02a45db1de4d54fbed795fba5c2740635d4bc639a43ccc2f49f3666ec0d525e3b045f"
}