Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-12-21 📝 Original message:On Monday, December 21, ...

📅 Original date posted:2020-12-21
📝 Original message:On Monday, December 21, 2020 2:57 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 9:37 PM, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for taking the time to brush up the BIP. For what it's
> > worth, I am all for these changes, and I see them as clear
> > improvements all around.
> > IIRC Pieter was the one who originally suggested the two-checks
> > approach (invalid, inconclusive, valid) which is being modified here,
> > so would be good if you chimed in (or not -- which I'll assume means
> > you don't mind).
>
> I agree with the idea of permitting incomplete validators to return inconclusive as well. That doesn't really reduce the functionality (given that "inconclusive" was already a potential result), and it obviously makes it much more accessible to a variety of software.
>
> This suggestion breaks the original use of inconclusive though: the ability to detect that future features are used in the signature. The idea was to use divergence between "consensus valid" and "standardness valid" as a proxy for future extensions to be detected (e.g. OP_NOPn, future witness versions, ...). I think it's undesirable that these things now become unconditionally invalid (until the BIP is updated, but once that happens old validators will give a different result than new ones).
>
> Since the BIP no longer relies on a nebulous concept of standardness, and instead specifically defines which standardness features are to be considered, this seems easy to fix: whenever validation fails due to any of those, require reporting inconclusive instead of invalid (unless of course something actually invalid also happens). In practice I guess you'd implement that (in capable validators) by still doing validation twice, once with all features enabled that distinguish between valid/invalid, and if valid, again but now with the features enabled that distinguish between valid and (invalid or inconclusive).

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.

Cheers,

--
Pieter