📅 Original date posted:2021-09-17
📝 Original message:Hi Giacomo,
I wrote the rust implementation of bitcoin signature messages and to
double-check I created some test vectors you can see at
https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/blob/b7f984972ad6cb4942827c2b7c401f590588cdcf/src/util/sighash.rs#L689-L799.
These vectors have been created printing intermediate results from
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6401de0133e32a641ed9e78a85b3aa337c75d190/test/functional/feature_taproot.py
Il giorno gio 16 set 2021 alle ore 23:40 Giacomo Caironi via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> ha scritto:
> Hi,
> recently I have worked on a python implementation of bitcoin signature
> messages, and I have found that there was way better documentation about
> Segwit signature message than Taproot.
>
> 1) Segwit signature message got its own BIP, completed with test cases
> regarding only that specific function; Taproot on the other hand has the
> signature message function defined in BIP 341 and the test vectors in a
> different BIP (341). This is confusing. Shouldn't we create a different BIP
> only for Taproot signature message exactly like Segwit?
>
> 2) The test vectors for Taproot have no documentation and, most
> importantly, they are not atomic, in the sense that they do not target a
> specific part of the taproot code but all of it. This may not be a very big
> problem, but for signature verification it is. Because there are hashes
> involved, we can't really debug why a signature message doesn't pass
> validation, either it is valid or it is not. BIP 143 in this case is really
> good, because it provides hash preimages, so it is possible to debug the
> function and see where something went wrong. Because of this, writing the
> Segwit signature hash function took a fraction of the time compared to
> Taproot.
>
> If this idea is accepted I will be more than happy to write the test cases
> for Taproot.
>
> BTW this is the first time I contribute to Bitcoin, let me know if I was
> rude or did something wrong. Moreover english is not my first language, so
> I apologize if I wrote something awful above
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
Riccardo Casatta - @RCasatta <https://twitter.com/RCasatta>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210917/ff486528/attachment-0001.html>;
Riccardo Casatta [ARCHIVE] /
npub13t…yxl7q
2023-06-07 22:59:34
in reply to nevent1q…mrru
Author Public Key
npub13t8gempry5dh8dkjw2m9wc0j4wu5kxlk9jxtwf24350fx2gtlqksmyxl7qPublished at
2023-06-07 22:59:34Event JSON
{
"id": "676d156532555d6971911cb8d609b6d1a4ed9c7a9cfeb1bd5061f83b835e5c0c",
"pubkey": "8ace8cec23251b73b6d272b65761f2abb94b1bf62c8cb725558d1e93290bf82d",
"created_at": 1686178774,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"41bb809da77fc656409c4e9154e230d60ffdb165d041947c6086e8232754b1a6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"efc1355a70001529d2819b3fca3341323ec57907c9053c330b7c2758e868e4ce",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a79cb39f8549de5fa5d1cff288df2e63729964f10f2e47c99aff140f75edc598"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-09-17\n📝 Original message:Hi Giacomo,\n\nI wrote the rust implementation of bitcoin signature messages and to\ndouble-check I created some test vectors you can see at\nhttps://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/blob/b7f984972ad6cb4942827c2b7c401f590588cdcf/src/util/sighash.rs#L689-L799.\nThese vectors have been created printing intermediate results from\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6401de0133e32a641ed9e78a85b3aa337c75d190/test/functional/feature_taproot.py\n\nIl giorno gio 16 set 2021 alle ore 23:40 Giacomo Caironi via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e ha scritto:\n\n\u003e Hi,\n\u003e recently I have worked on a python implementation of bitcoin signature\n\u003e messages, and I have found that there was way better documentation about\n\u003e Segwit signature message than Taproot.\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) Segwit signature message got its own BIP, completed with test cases\n\u003e regarding only that specific function; Taproot on the other hand has the\n\u003e signature message function defined in BIP 341 and the test vectors in a\n\u003e different BIP (341). This is confusing. Shouldn't we create a different BIP\n\u003e only for Taproot signature message exactly like Segwit?\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) The test vectors for Taproot have no documentation and, most\n\u003e importantly, they are not atomic, in the sense that they do not target a\n\u003e specific part of the taproot code but all of it. This may not be a very big\n\u003e problem, but for signature verification it is. Because there are hashes\n\u003e involved, we can't really debug why a signature message doesn't pass\n\u003e validation, either it is valid or it is not. BIP 143 in this case is really\n\u003e good, because it provides hash preimages, so it is possible to debug the\n\u003e function and see where something went wrong. Because of this, writing the\n\u003e Segwit signature hash function took a fraction of the time compared to\n\u003e Taproot.\n\u003e\n\u003e If this idea is accepted I will be more than happy to write the test cases\n\u003e for Taproot.\n\u003e\n\u003e BTW this is the first time I contribute to Bitcoin, let me know if I was\n\u003e rude or did something wrong. Moreover english is not my first language, so\n\u003e I apologize if I wrote something awful above\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nRiccardo Casatta - @RCasatta \u003chttps://twitter.com/RCasatta\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210917/ff486528/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "da42c452b623db9a3e4af176cb92daec873840d1ce74dbd6ce2e5b0aa60ed5c4eda72608e55367ff5218744a23a875531a0c2746fd8cac7bf7e708ddef6ff08f"
}