> Backward compatibility. If we don't have OP_CHECKDATASIG, then it has to be > somehow introduced to make it compatible with "Bitcoin Message".
I suppose in the case of legacy P2PKH signing, a hypothetical OP_CHECKDATASIG can take <signature> <pubkeyhash> off the stack and perform an ECDSA public key recovery, followed by SHA256/RIPEMD160, kind of like a hybrid between OP_DUP/OP_HASH160/OP_EQUALVERIFY and OP_CHECKSIG. But the implementations would have to decode the Base58 address into "0x00" plus the address hash. As the only supported invoice type for the Legacy signing methods, this should be straight forward to do. > And we have opcodes like OP_RESERVED, that can be wrapped in OP_IF, then it > is "conditionally valid transaction". I'm not sure how an OP_RESERVED in an unexcuted OP_IF is going to help implement an ECDSA pubkey recovery + DUP/HASH160/EQUALVERIFY hybrid instruction. - Ali On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 04:59:46 +0200, vju...@gazeta.pl wrote: > > I'm not sure what is to be gained from adding an opcode > > Backward compatibility. If we don't have OP_CHECKDATASIG, then it has to be > somehow introduced to make it compatible with "Bitcoin Message". And we have > opcodes like OP_RESERVED, that can be wrapped in OP_IF, then it is > "conditionally valid transaction". It is also possible to assign some unused > opcode, but then it will be more complex, because in Script, those opcodes > make transaction invalid, but inside TapScript, those opcodes are defined as > OP_SUCCESS, and make things automatically valid. > > > On 2022-08-09 22:53:34 user Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Although there is a Github issue/PR at > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1347 for addressing all the TODO items > > of BIP322, I decided to throw it in the mailing list again to see if anyone > > else has suggestions for dealing with them. > > So in an older copy of the draft at > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/b6b0126e2d04793ba52a40f05d24538fa3f2c9ad/bip-0322.mediawiki > , I found the some TODO items, and I will copy-paste the ones in the > Specification section (for full proofs) here: > > > TODO: How does this interact with as-of-yet-unspecified "Silent > > Transactions"? > > TODO: Some invalid opcode to allow only in various proof types? > > TODO: A way for the initial signer to delegate to another scriptPubKey; > > needed for better privacy and CoinJoin/Lightning compatibility > > So to start with, I believe it will be very helpful to limit what opcodes > scriptPubKeys to be elligible to sign from them. The specification already > does so to a point, but in order for these to be recognizable, it's my > opinion that one of the NOPs should be placed at the beginning of the script > to activate proof parsing mode. > > Of course, an opcode is not necessary at all, if the program is able to infer > from context where the proof is coming from. After all, since they cannot be > broadcasted, they can't be mined in blocks, so will never be encountered in a > full node's usual verifier. I'm not sure what is to be gained from adding an > opcode - the only source for real transactions is from P2P-obtained blocks, > so when a human inputs a signature to be verified, it can check that a real > transaction is not being inserted by looking for the invalid input. > > For Silent Transactions, I have already given my suggestion in the PR, that > some subsection can be made saying that it can operate with them by using its > scriptPubKey (and other stuff that may be necessary - I am not excatly sure > what goes inside the Witness stack of message_signature). > > In the case of the last TODO, related to delegation to another scriptPubKey, > I am not quite sure at the moment what to do about it - perhaps you guys can > place a MAST (two Merkle branches, to be specific) - the first branch has the > original signer's scriptPubKey, the second branch contains the delegated > signer's scriptPubKey. > > - Ali _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
