OK, fair enough, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. "Thorny issues there and there hasn't been a ton of effort put into what Bitcoin integration and maintainability looks like" is a perfectly fair response :)
Matt On 10/30/17 18:32, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > I was just making a factual observation/correction. This is Russell’s project > and I don’t want to speak for him. Personally I don’t think the particulars > of bitcoin integration design space have been thoroughly explored enough to > predict the exact approach that will be used. > > It is possible to support a standard library of jets that are general purpose > enough to allow the validation of new crypto primitives, like reusing sha2 to > make Lamport signatures. Or use curve-agnostic jets to do Weil pairing > validation. Or string manipulation and serialization jets to implement > covenants. So I don’t think the situation is as dire as you make it sound. > >> On Oct 30, 2017, at 3:14 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com> wrote: >> >> Are you anticipating it will be reasonably possible to execute more >> complicated things in interpreted form even after "jets" are put in >> place? If not its just a soft-fork to add new script operations and >> going through the effort of making them compatible with existing code >> and using a full 32 byte hash to represent them seems wasteful - might >> as well just add a "SHA256 opcode". >> >> Either way it sounds like you're assuming a pretty aggressive soft-fork >> cadence? I'm not sure if that's so practical right now (or are you >> thinking it would be more practical if things were >> drop-in-formally-verified-equivalent-replacements?). >> >> Matt >> >>> On 10/30/17 17:56, Mark Friedenbach wrote: >>> Script versions makes this no longer a hard-fork to do. The script >>> version would implicitly encode which jets are optimized, and what their >>> optimized cost is. >>> >>>> On Oct 30, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I admittedly haven't had a chance to read the paper in full details, >>>> but I was curious how you propose dealing with "jets" in something >>>> like Bitcoin. AFAIU, other similar systems are left doing hard-forks >>>> to reduce the sigops/weight/fee-cost of transactions every time they >>>> want to add useful optimized drop-ins. For obvious reasons, this seems >>>> rather impractical and a potentially critical barrier to adoption of >>>> such optimized drop-ins, which I imagine would be required to do any >>>> new cryptographic algorithms due to the significant fee cost of >>>> interpreting such things. >>>> >>>> Is there some insight I'm missing here? >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> On October 30, 2017 11:22:20 AM EDT, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I've been working on the design and implementation of an >>>> alternative to Bitcoin Script, which I call Simplicity. Today, I >>>> am presenting my design at the PLAS 2017 Workshop >>>> <http://plas2017.cse.buffalo.edu/> on Programming Languages and >>>> Analysis for Security. You find a copy of my Simplicity paper at >>>> https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf >>>> <https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf> >>>> >>>> Simplicity is a low-level, typed, functional, native MAST language >>>> where programs are built from basic combinators. Like Bitcoin >>>> Script, Simplicity is designed to operate at the consensus layer. >>>> While one can write Simplicity by hand, it is expected to be the >>>> target of one, or multiple, front-end languages. >>>> >>>> Simplicity comes with formal denotational semantics (i.e. >>>> semantics of what programs compute) and formal operational >>>> semantics (i.e. semantics of how programs compute). These are both >>>> formalized in the Coq proof assistant and proven equivalent. >>>> >>>> Formal denotational semantics are of limited value unless one can >>>> use them in practice to reason about programs. I've used >>>> Simplicity's formal semantics to prove correct an implementation >>>> of the SHA-256 compression function written in Simplicity. I have >>>> also implemented a variant of ECDSA signature verification in >>>> Simplicity, and plan to formally validate its correctness along >>>> with the associated elliptic curve operations. >>>> >>>> Simplicity comes with easy to compute static analyses that can >>>> compute bounds on the space and time resources needed for >>>> evaluation. This is important for both node operators, so that >>>> the costs are knows before evaluation, and for designing >>>> Simplicity programs, so that smart-contract participants can know >>>> the costs of their contract before committing to it. >>>> >>>> As a native MAST language, unused branches of Simplicity programs >>>> are pruned at redemption time. This enhances privacy, reduces the >>>> block weight used, and can reduce space and time resource costs >>>> needed for evaluation. >>>> >>>> To make Simplicity practical, jets replace common Simplicity >>>> expressions (identified by their MAST root) and directly implement >>>> them with C code. I anticipate developing a broad set of useful >>>> jets covering arithmetic operations, elliptic curve operations, >>>> and cryptographic operations including hashing and digital >>>> signature validation. >>>> >>>> The paper I am presenting at PLAS describes only the foundation of >>>> the Simplicity language. The final design includes extensions not >>>> covered in the paper, including >>>> >>>> - full convent support, allowing access to all transaction data. >>>> - support for signature aggregation. >>>> - support for delegation. >>>> >>>> Simplicity is still in a research and development phase. I'm >>>> working to produce a bare-bones SDK that will include >>>> >>>> - the formal semantics and correctness proofs in Coq >>>> - a Haskell implementation for constructing Simplicity programs >>>> - and a C interpreter for Simplicity. >>>> >>>> After an SDK is complete the next step will be making Simplicity >>>> available in the Elements project <https://elementsproject.org/> >>>> so that anyone can start experimenting with Simplicity in >>>> sidechains. Only after extensive vetting would it be suitable to >>>> consider Simplicity for inclusion in Bitcoin. >>>> >>>> Simplicity has a long ways to go still, and this work is not >>>> intended to delay consideration of the various Merkelized Script >>>> proposals that are currently ongoing. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev