fred savage [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2018-07-04 to 2018-07-13
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, Lightning-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:13:27

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-07-13
📝 Original message:the issues with sighash_noinput is this
1. you cannot prevent address-reuse. because bitcoin is a PUSH payment. meaning other people can send funds to one address without the owner of the key approval/refusal. thus luke cannot control address reuse if many people start spamming him donations.
2. for average users who would just 'autopilot' LN and only see the GUI. they will have no clue what transaction types and technicals are happening under the hood. also with LN being not validated by the community. a user creating a channel could tweak their own LN node to make their counterparty sign a sighash-noinput as a term/condition of the channel
this is also a risk for the under the hood raw tx risks where a tx can be signed but then allow the out's to alter value(using a different opcode). .. you know the premiss of allowing a counterpart to alter the outs value to vary so that they can control the broadcast fee at the time of broadcast to cover being acceptd onchain.. which can be abused by a counter party just editing it so A gets nothing and B gets it all..
3. by allowing certain things to change after signing. is infact bringing back malleability for those that use a TXID to identify a tx has been confirmed. as a TXID would change if values change.. just like how malleation abused old transactions by editing a tx without needing to re-sign a tx
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 13 July 2018 00:04:14
To: DING FENG; Luke Dashjr
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion; lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] BIP sighash_noinput
DING FENG <dingfeng12345 at gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a junior developer and a bitcoin user.
> And I have read this thread carefully.
>
> I'm very worried about "SIGHASH_NOINPUT".
>
> Because "SIGHASH_NOINPUT" looks will be widely used, and it makes reuse
> address more dangerous.
No.
A wallet should *never* create a SIGHASH_NOINPUT to spend its own UTXOs.
SIGHASH_NOINPUT is useful for smart contracts which have unique
conditions, such as a pair of peers rotating keys according to an agreed
schedule (eg. lightning).
Cheers,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
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/20180713/62400699/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:13:27

- reply

2023-06-07 18:13:26

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-07-04
📝 Original message:you cannot specifically NOT support addrss reuse. on a blockchain where people can send you funds without your permission required to send you funds. so ALWAYS expect multiple payments to the same address
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 03 July 2018 12:13:44
To: lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] BIP sighash_noinput
On Monday 02 July 2018 18:11:54 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important
> that the formal name of this flag is something like
> "SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE" or likewise or at least
> "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE". This is because noinput is materially
> insecure for traditional applications where a third party might pay to
> an address a second time, and should only be used in special protocols
> which make that kind of mistake unlikely.
I don't agree. Address reuse is undefined behaviour. Nobody should assume it
is safe or works.
I intend to possibly use SIGHASH_NOINPUT for ordinary Bitcoin transactions in
a wallet I am writing, which explicitly does not support address reuse.
Luke
_______________________________________________
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/20180704/a9830de3/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:13:26

- reply