Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Kristov Atlas writes: > Hello all, > > I have written a draft of a BIP to standardize the sorting of tx inputs and > outputs for privacy and security reasons. A few colleagues have reviewed > this and provided feedback privately, but now it's ready for feedback from > a wider audience. > > If there is positive sentiment about the proposal after feedback is > integrated, I aim for a bip number to be assigned and have it accepted into > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips OK, I've modified my implementation to match your proposal: https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin/tree/bip-69 It compiles, and is fairly trivial, but will need some testing. Cheers, Rusty. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Update: BIP 79 has been implemented in the latest release of Electrum, v2.3.2: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES -Kristov On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Kristov Atlas wrote: > Since everyone's busy, I went ahead and made a pull request to add this as > an informational BIP 79 to the bips directory. > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/157 > > Regards, > Kristov > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote: >> >> Two other things: >> >> >> >> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >> > >> > > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized >> > > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those >> protocols. >> > > For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases where the need is >> clear >> > > and there exists running code that to speculate too much on future >> uses. >> > > With signature hashing in particular it's not yet clear at all what >> > > future OP_CHECKSIG's will look like, let alone the various ways people >> > > will use sighash for smart contract type stuff. >> > > >> > > You'd be better off presenting the BIP in terms of a generic statement >> > > that "except when otherwise prevented by advanced signature hashing >> > > requirements, wallet software must emit transactions sorted according >> to >> > > the following" You can then specify the two common cases in detail: >> > > >> > > 1) SIGHASH_ALL: input and output order signed, so sort appropriately >> > > >> > > 2) SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: input order not signed, so software should >> emit >> > >transactions sorted, recognising that the actual mined order may be >> > >changed. >> > > >> > >> > That makes sense. I updated the language as follows -- your thoughts? >> Keep >> > in mind this BIP is informational, and so people are free to ignore it. >> > >> > "Applicability: This BIP applies to all transactions of signature hash >> type >> > SIGHASH_ALL. Additionally, software compliant with this BIP that allows >> > later parties to update the transaction (e.g. using signature hash types >> > SIGHASH_NONE or a variant of SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY) should emit >> > lexicographically sorted inputs and outputs, although they may later be >> > modified. Transactions that have index dependencies between >> transactions or >> > within the same transaction are covered under the section of this BIP >> > entitled “Handling Input/Output Dependencies.”" >> >> I'd keep it even simpler than that, and just say for now that such >> use-cases are out of the scope of this BIP, however those standards >> should come up with some kind of deterministic standard that meets the >> needs of the protocol. Again, there's a bunch of possible use-cases here >> and we just can't predict them; focus on the fact that the *spirit* of >> what this BIP is about is applicable and future standards should be >> developed. >> >> So I'd change the "Applicability" section to: >> >> This BIP applies to all transactions where the order of inputs and >> outputs does not matter. This is true for the vast majority of >> transactions as they simply move funds from one place to another. >> >> Currently this generally refers to transactions where SIGHASH_ALL is >> used, in which case the signatures commit to the exact order of input >> and outputs. In the case where SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY and/or SIGHASH_NONE >> has been used (e.g. crowdfunds) the order of inputs and/or outputs may >> not be signed, however compliant software should still emit transactions >> with sorted inputs and outputs, even though they may later be modified >> by others. >> >> In the event that future protocol upgrades introduce new signature hash >> types, compliant software should apply the lexographic ordering >> principle analogously. >> >> While out of scope of this BIP, protocols that do require a specified >> order of inputs/outputs (e.g. due to use of SIGHASH_SINGLE) should >> consider the goals of this BIP and how best to adapt them to the >> specifics needs of those protocols. >> >> >> Then remove the "handling input/output deps" section. >> >> > > Do you have a patch implementing deterministic tx ordering for Bitcoin >> > > Core yet? >> > > >> > >> > I'm not a frequent C programmer, so I'd prefer to let someone else take >> > care of it, as a frequent committer of code would do a faster and more >> > stylistically consistent job of it. If no one else will, however, I >> will. >> >> >> >> re: the actual ordering algorithm, having txids be sorted by with the >> hex-based algorithm is odd. I'd simply say they're sorted as >> little-endian byte arrays, or in other words, with the bytearr_cmp() >> function, but with the order of bytes reversed. You also should say that >> we're doing that to make the user see them in visually sorted order to >> match expectations because txids are displayed as little-endian. >> >> For outputs, don't say "locking scr
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Since everyone's busy, I went ahead and made a pull request to add this as an informational BIP 79 to the bips directory. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/157 Regards, Kristov On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote: > > Two other things: > > > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > > > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized > > > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols. > > > For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases where the need is clear > > > and there exists running code that to speculate too much on future > uses. > > > With signature hashing in particular it's not yet clear at all what > > > future OP_CHECKSIG's will look like, let alone the various ways people > > > will use sighash for smart contract type stuff. > > > > > > You'd be better off presenting the BIP in terms of a generic statement > > > that "except when otherwise prevented by advanced signature hashing > > > requirements, wallet software must emit transactions sorted according > to > > > the following" You can then specify the two common cases in detail: > > > > > > 1) SIGHASH_ALL: input and output order signed, so sort appropriately > > > > > > 2) SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: input order not signed, so software should > emit > > >transactions sorted, recognising that the actual mined order may be > > >changed. > > > > > > > That makes sense. I updated the language as follows -- your thoughts? > Keep > > in mind this BIP is informational, and so people are free to ignore it. > > > > "Applicability: This BIP applies to all transactions of signature hash > type > > SIGHASH_ALL. Additionally, software compliant with this BIP that allows > > later parties to update the transaction (e.g. using signature hash types > > SIGHASH_NONE or a variant of SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY) should emit > > lexicographically sorted inputs and outputs, although they may later be > > modified. Transactions that have index dependencies between transactions > or > > within the same transaction are covered under the section of this BIP > > entitled “Handling Input/Output Dependencies.”" > > I'd keep it even simpler than that, and just say for now that such > use-cases are out of the scope of this BIP, however those standards > should come up with some kind of deterministic standard that meets the > needs of the protocol. Again, there's a bunch of possible use-cases here > and we just can't predict them; focus on the fact that the *spirit* of > what this BIP is about is applicable and future standards should be > developed. > > So I'd change the "Applicability" section to: > > This BIP applies to all transactions where the order of inputs and > outputs does not matter. This is true for the vast majority of > transactions as they simply move funds from one place to another. > > Currently this generally refers to transactions where SIGHASH_ALL is > used, in which case the signatures commit to the exact order of input > and outputs. In the case where SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY and/or SIGHASH_NONE > has been used (e.g. crowdfunds) the order of inputs and/or outputs may > not be signed, however compliant software should still emit transactions > with sorted inputs and outputs, even though they may later be modified > by others. > > In the event that future protocol upgrades introduce new signature hash > types, compliant software should apply the lexographic ordering > principle analogously. > > While out of scope of this BIP, protocols that do require a specified > order of inputs/outputs (e.g. due to use of SIGHASH_SINGLE) should > consider the goals of this BIP and how best to adapt them to the > specifics needs of those protocols. > > > Then remove the "handling input/output deps" section. > > > > Do you have a patch implementing deterministic tx ordering for Bitcoin > > > Core yet? > > > > > > > I'm not a frequent C programmer, so I'd prefer to let someone else take > > care of it, as a frequent committer of code would do a faster and more > > stylistically consistent job of it. If no one else will, however, I will. > > > > re: the actual ordering algorithm, having txids be sorted by with the > hex-based algorithm is odd. I'd simply say they're sorted as > little-endian byte arrays, or in other words, with the bytearr_cmp() > function, but with the order of bytes reversed. You also should say that > we're doing that to make the user see them in visually sorted order to > match expectations because txids are displayed as little-endian. > > For outputs, don't say "locking script", say "scriptPubKey". Secondly, > scriptPubKeys are not in little-endian representation - they have no > endianness to them. With output amount, there's no need to say that > they're unsigned or little-endian satoshies, just say they're sorted > largest/smallest amount first. > > "For the sake of efficiency, amounts will be con
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Thanks for the feedback. I think I have reflected all of your requested changes in the latest version, in the BIP and sample code: https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/tree/master/bips -Kr On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote: > > Two other things: > > > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > > > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized > > > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols. > > > For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases where the need is clear > > > and there exists running code that to speculate too much on future > uses. > > > With signature hashing in particular it's not yet clear at all what > > > future OP_CHECKSIG's will look like, let alone the various ways people > > > will use sighash for smart contract type stuff. > > > > > > You'd be better off presenting the BIP in terms of a generic statement > > > that "except when otherwise prevented by advanced signature hashing > > > requirements, wallet software must emit transactions sorted according > to > > > the following" You can then specify the two common cases in detail: > > > > > > 1) SIGHASH_ALL: input and output order signed, so sort appropriately > > > > > > 2) SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: input order not signed, so software should > emit > > >transactions sorted, recognising that the actual mined order may be > > >changed. > > > > > > > That makes sense. I updated the language as follows -- your thoughts? > Keep > > in mind this BIP is informational, and so people are free to ignore it. > > > > "Applicability: This BIP applies to all transactions of signature hash > type > > SIGHASH_ALL. Additionally, software compliant with this BIP that allows > > later parties to update the transaction (e.g. using signature hash types > > SIGHASH_NONE or a variant of SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY) should emit > > lexicographically sorted inputs and outputs, although they may later be > > modified. Transactions that have index dependencies between transactions > or > > within the same transaction are covered under the section of this BIP > > entitled “Handling Input/Output Dependencies.”" > > I'd keep it even simpler than that, and just say for now that such > use-cases are out of the scope of this BIP, however those standards > should come up with some kind of deterministic standard that meets the > needs of the protocol. Again, there's a bunch of possible use-cases here > and we just can't predict them; focus on the fact that the *spirit* of > what this BIP is about is applicable and future standards should be > developed. > > So I'd change the "Applicability" section to: > > This BIP applies to all transactions where the order of inputs and > outputs does not matter. This is true for the vast majority of > transactions as they simply move funds from one place to another. > > Currently this generally refers to transactions where SIGHASH_ALL is > used, in which case the signatures commit to the exact order of input > and outputs. In the case where SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY and/or SIGHASH_NONE > has been used (e.g. crowdfunds) the order of inputs and/or outputs may > not be signed, however compliant software should still emit transactions > with sorted inputs and outputs, even though they may later be modified > by others. > > In the event that future protocol upgrades introduce new signature hash > types, compliant software should apply the lexographic ordering > principle analogously. > > While out of scope of this BIP, protocols that do require a specified > order of inputs/outputs (e.g. due to use of SIGHASH_SINGLE) should > consider the goals of this BIP and how best to adapt them to the > specifics needs of those protocols. > > > Then remove the "handling input/output deps" section. > > > > Do you have a patch implementing deterministic tx ordering for Bitcoin > > > Core yet? > > > > > > > I'm not a frequent C programmer, so I'd prefer to let someone else take > > care of it, as a frequent committer of code would do a faster and more > > stylistically consistent job of it. If no one else will, however, I will. > > > > re: the actual ordering algorithm, having txids be sorted by with the > hex-based algorithm is odd. I'd simply say they're sorted as > little-endian byte arrays, or in other words, with the bytearr_cmp() > function, but with the order of bytes reversed. You also should say that > we're doing that to make the user see them in visually sorted order to > match expectations because txids are displayed as little-endian. > > For outputs, don't say "locking script", say "scriptPubKey". Secondly, > scriptPubKeys are not in little-endian representation - they have no > endianness to them. With output amount, there's no need to say that > they're unsigned or little-endian satoshies, just say they're sorted > largest/smallest amount first. > > "For the sake of efficiency, amounts wil
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote: Two other things: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized > > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols. > > For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases where the need is clear > > and there exists running code that to speculate too much on future uses. > > With signature hashing in particular it's not yet clear at all what > > future OP_CHECKSIG's will look like, let alone the various ways people > > will use sighash for smart contract type stuff. > > > > You'd be better off presenting the BIP in terms of a generic statement > > that "except when otherwise prevented by advanced signature hashing > > requirements, wallet software must emit transactions sorted according to > > the following" You can then specify the two common cases in detail: > > > > 1) SIGHASH_ALL: input and output order signed, so sort appropriately > > > > 2) SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: input order not signed, so software should emit > >transactions sorted, recognising that the actual mined order may be > >changed. > > > > That makes sense. I updated the language as follows -- your thoughts? Keep > in mind this BIP is informational, and so people are free to ignore it. > > "Applicability: This BIP applies to all transactions of signature hash type > SIGHASH_ALL. Additionally, software compliant with this BIP that allows > later parties to update the transaction (e.g. using signature hash types > SIGHASH_NONE or a variant of SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY) should emit > lexicographically sorted inputs and outputs, although they may later be > modified. Transactions that have index dependencies between transactions or > within the same transaction are covered under the section of this BIP > entitled “Handling Input/Output Dependencies.”" I'd keep it even simpler than that, and just say for now that such use-cases are out of the scope of this BIP, however those standards should come up with some kind of deterministic standard that meets the needs of the protocol. Again, there's a bunch of possible use-cases here and we just can't predict them; focus on the fact that the *spirit* of what this BIP is about is applicable and future standards should be developed. So I'd change the "Applicability" section to: This BIP applies to all transactions where the order of inputs and outputs does not matter. This is true for the vast majority of transactions as they simply move funds from one place to another. Currently this generally refers to transactions where SIGHASH_ALL is used, in which case the signatures commit to the exact order of input and outputs. In the case where SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY and/or SIGHASH_NONE has been used (e.g. crowdfunds) the order of inputs and/or outputs may not be signed, however compliant software should still emit transactions with sorted inputs and outputs, even though they may later be modified by others. In the event that future protocol upgrades introduce new signature hash types, compliant software should apply the lexographic ordering principle analogously. While out of scope of this BIP, protocols that do require a specified order of inputs/outputs (e.g. due to use of SIGHASH_SINGLE) should consider the goals of this BIP and how best to adapt them to the specifics needs of those protocols. Then remove the "handling input/output deps" section. > > Do you have a patch implementing deterministic tx ordering for Bitcoin > > Core yet? > > > > I'm not a frequent C programmer, so I'd prefer to let someone else take > care of it, as a frequent committer of code would do a faster and more > stylistically consistent job of it. If no one else will, however, I will. re: the actual ordering algorithm, having txids be sorted by with the hex-based algorithm is odd. I'd simply say they're sorted as little-endian byte arrays, or in other words, with the bytearr_cmp() function, but with the order of bytes reversed. You also should say that we're doing that to make the user see them in visually sorted order to match expectations because txids are displayed as little-endian. For outputs, don't say "locking script", say "scriptPubKey". Secondly, scriptPubKeys are not in little-endian representation - they have no endianness to them. With output amount, there's no need to say that they're unsigned or little-endian satoshies, just say they're sorted largest/smallest amount first. "For the sake of efficiency, amounts will be considered first for sorting, since they contain fewer bytes of information (7 bytes) compared to a standard P2PKH locking script (800 bytes)." <- where the heck did you get these numbers from? Amounts are 8 bytes, and P2PKH scriptPubKeys are 25 bytes. "Backwards Compatibility" <- I'd just remove this whole section; we're unlikely to make this an IsStandard() rule anytime soon. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
> > As for IsStandard() rules - let alone soft forks - better to leave > discussion of them out for now. Removed that bit as well. Latest version: https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/blob/master/bips/bip-li01.mediawiki -Kristov -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Hey Peter, thanks for your experienced feedback. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols. > For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases where the need is clear > and there exists running code that to speculate too much on future uses. > With signature hashing in particular it's not yet clear at all what > future OP_CHECKSIG's will look like, let alone the various ways people > will use sighash for smart contract type stuff. > > You'd be better off presenting the BIP in terms of a generic statement > that "except when otherwise prevented by advanced signature hashing > requirements, wallet software must emit transactions sorted according to > the following" You can then specify the two common cases in detail: > > 1) SIGHASH_ALL: input and output order signed, so sort appropriately > > 2) SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: input order not signed, so software should emit >transactions sorted, recognising that the actual mined order may be >changed. > That makes sense. I updated the language as follows -- your thoughts? Keep in mind this BIP is informational, and so people are free to ignore it. "Applicability: This BIP applies to all transactions of signature hash type SIGHASH_ALL. Additionally, software compliant with this BIP that allows later parties to update the transaction (e.g. using signature hash types SIGHASH_NONE or a variant of SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY) should emit lexicographically sorted inputs and outputs, although they may later be modified. Transactions that have index dependencies between transactions or within the same transaction are covered under the section of this BIP entitled “Handling Input/Output Dependencies.”" > As for IsStandard() rules - let alone soft forks - better to leave > discussion of them out for now. In particular, for the soft-fork case > mandating certain transaction orders will very likely cause problems in > the future for future OP_CHECKSIG upgrades. For SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, it > might be appropriate for nodes to enforce a certain ordering, but that > can be a separate BIP. (actually implementing that in Bitcoin Core would > be annoying and ugly right now; without replace-by-fee ANYONECANPAY has > a silly DoS attack (adding low-fee inputs) so I can't recommend wallets > use it in the general case yet) > > "and a sequence number currently set to 0x." <- Actually, this > will be changed in Bitcoin Core as of v0.11.0, which implements > anti-fee-sniping w/ nLockTime.(1) (I need to write up a full BIP > describing it) > Thanks for the heads-up; removed. > Do you have a patch implementing deterministic tx ordering for Bitcoin > Core yet? > I'm not a frequent C programmer, so I'd prefer to let someone else take care of it, as a frequent committer of code would do a faster and more stylistically consistent job of it. If no one else will, however, I will. -Kristov -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 08:06:56PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote: In general I think this is a good idea, and should be implemented; we've had a depressing number of wallets fail to implement randomization properly, if at all. > I've updated the draft BIP in two ways: > -Making it clear that sorting is algorithmically agnostic, but should > conform to the output of the example algorithms written in python > -The BIP now handles schemes that create an input/output dependency, such > as SIGHASH_SINGLE: > > Handling Input/Output Dependencies > > Some uncommon forms of transactions create an ordering dependency between > inputs and outputs of a transaction. Wallets forming these transactions > should first sort inputs according to the methodology outlined in section > “Transaction Inputs” of this BIP. Then, they should fix the output indices > that depend on the input order, and sort the remaining outputs around them. > If there are no outputs that do not depend on input order, then all outputs > will simply be ordered based on the expected scheme. The following are the > known cases of input/output dependency that must be handled specially: > > * SIGHASH_SINGLE hash type. [5] Clients seeking to verify LI01 compliance > for a transaction must inspect the last byte of the scriptSig of each input > to determine the signature hash type. In the case of SIGHASH_SINGLE (0x03) > for input “n”, the verifier should expect that output “n” will be fixed > when considering output ordering. Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols. For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases where the need is clear and there exists running code that to speculate too much on future uses. With signature hashing in particular it's not yet clear at all what future OP_CHECKSIG's will look like, let alone the various ways people will use sighash for smart contract type stuff. You'd be better off presenting the BIP in terms of a generic statement that "except when otherwise prevented by advanced signature hashing requirements, wallet software must emit transactions sorted according to the following" You can then specify the two common cases in detail: 1) SIGHASH_ALL: input and output order signed, so sort appropriately 2) SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: input order not signed, so software should emit transactions sorted, recognising that the actual mined order may be changed. As for IsStandard() rules - let alone soft forks - better to leave discussion of them out for now. In particular, for the soft-fork case mandating certain transaction orders will very likely cause problems in the future for future OP_CHECKSIG upgrades. For SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, it might be appropriate for nodes to enforce a certain ordering, but that can be a separate BIP. (actually implementing that in Bitcoin Core would be annoying and ugly right now; without replace-by-fee ANYONECANPAY has a silly DoS attack (adding low-fee inputs) so I can't recommend wallets use it in the general case yet) "and a sequence number currently set to 0x." <- Actually, this will be changed in Bitcoin Core as of v0.11.0, which implements anti-fee-sniping w/ nLockTime.(1) (I need to write up a full BIP describing it) Do you have a patch implementing deterministic tx ordering for Bitcoin Core yet? 1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2340 -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 079693d8d175b476081a04af9c1d00ea2dbe0efb011bd79e signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
I've updated the draft BIP in two ways: -Making it clear that sorting is algorithmically agnostic, but should conform to the output of the example algorithms written in python -The BIP now handles schemes that create an input/output dependency, such as SIGHASH_SINGLE: Handling Input/Output Dependencies Some uncommon forms of transactions create an ordering dependency between inputs and outputs of a transaction. Wallets forming these transactions should first sort inputs according to the methodology outlined in section “Transaction Inputs” of this BIP. Then, they should fix the output indices that depend on the input order, and sort the remaining outputs around them. If there are no outputs that do not depend on input order, then all outputs will simply be ordered based on the expected scheme. The following are the known cases of input/output dependency that must be handled specially: * SIGHASH_SINGLE hash type. [5] Clients seeking to verify LI01 compliance for a transaction must inspect the last byte of the scriptSig of each input to determine the signature hash type. In the case of SIGHASH_SINGLE (0x03) for input “n”, the verifier should expect that output “n” will be fixed when considering output ordering. https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/blob/master/bips/bip-li01.mediawiki I'm satisfied with this adjustment, as it is unlikely that any software that wants to verify compliance with the BIP will not have access to the scriptSig of each input. -Kristov On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Kristov Atlas wrote: > Hey Stephen, > > Thanks for your feedback > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Stephen > wrote: > >> - I think your explanation of sorting could be significantly shortened >> and clarified by simply saying that the TXIDs of inputs should be compared >> as uint256 integers. >> > > I considered defining the comparison of txids in terms of integers; > however, I am concerned that this definition may be ambiguous when applied > to a variety of languages and platforms without a similar amount of > explanation as currently exists. For example, if a web wallet uses an API > to receive transaction information, this is traditionally expressed in > terms tx id strings rather than 256-bit integers. My intent is that wallets > can implement the algorithm however they wish, but should ensure that their > output is compliant with the BIP definition. IMHO the algorithm stated in > the BIP should target test cases rather than implementation, and should > leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Hey Stephen, Thanks for your feedback On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Stephen wrote: > - I think your explanation of sorting could be significantly shortened > and clarified by simply saying that the TXIDs of inputs should be compared > as uint256 integers. > I considered defining the comparison of txids in terms of integers; however, I am concerned that this definition may be ambiguous when applied to a variety of languages and platforms without a similar amount of explanation as currently exists. For example, if a web wallet uses an API to receive transaction information, this is traditionally expressed in terms tx id strings rather than 256-bit integers. My intent is that wallets can implement the algorithm however they wish, but should ensure that their output is compliant with the BIP definition. IMHO the algorithm stated in the BIP should target test cases rather than implementation, and should leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Hi Kristov, I like the idea. Mainly because having a standard reminds developers to consider this issue. In addition, we would have visibility into the portion of the network that adopts this strategy to enhance privacy. A few points of feedback: - I think your explanation of sorting could be significantly shortened and clarified by simply saying that the TXIDs of inputs should be compared as uint256 integers. - The malleability of input TXIDs, as mentioned in the proposal, could cause inputs to be ordered in a non-standard way. Reordering then them would invalidate the signatures (assuming SIGHASH_ALL), so the transaction would be left with improperly ordered inputs. While not a huge issue, it's not ideal. I think the best way to get around this would be to use normalized TXIDs, but you might also be able to sort based on the previous outputs that each of the inputs are spending? These both require information that may not be readily available, however, and use of normalized transaction IDs is not fully developed yet. Best, Stephen > On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Kristov Atlas > wrote: > > Hello all, > > I have written a draft of a BIP to standardize the sorting of tx inputs and > outputs for privacy and security reasons. A few colleagues have reviewed this > and provided feedback privately, but now it's ready for feedback from a wider > audience. > > If there is positive sentiment about the proposal after feedback is > integrated, I aim for a bip number to be assigned and have it accepted into > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips > > Link: https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/blob/master/bips/bip-li01.mediawiki > > For your convenience, here's the abstract: > > "Currently there is no standard for bitcoin wallet clients when ordering > transaction inputs and outputs. As a result, wallet clients often have a > discernible blockchain fingerprint, and can leak private information about > their users. By contrast, a standard for non-deterministic sorting could be > difficult to audit. This document proposes deterministic lexicographical > sorting, using hashes of previous transactions and output indices to sort > transaction inputs, as well as value and locking scripts to sort transaction > outputs." > > Thanks, > > Kristov Atlas > Open Bitcoin Privacy Project Contributor, Blockchain.info Security Engineer, > etc. > Twitter: @kristovatlas > Blog: kristovatlas.com > -- > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction Inputs and Outputs
Hello all, I have written a draft of a BIP to standardize the sorting of tx inputs and outputs for privacy and security reasons. A few colleagues have reviewed this and provided feedback privately, but now it's ready for feedback from a wider audience. If there is positive sentiment about the proposal after feedback is integrated, I aim for a bip number to be assigned and have it accepted into https://github.com/bitcoin/bips Link: https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/blob/master/bips/bip-li01.mediawiki For your convenience, here's the abstract: "Currently there is no standard for bitcoin wallet clients when ordering transaction inputs and outputs. As a result, wallet clients often have a discernible blockchain fingerprint, and can leak private information about their users. By contrast, a standard for non-deterministic sorting could be difficult to audit. This document proposes deterministic lexicographical sorting, using hashes of previous transactions and output indices to sort transaction inputs, as well as value and locking scripts to sort transaction outputs." Thanks, Kristov Atlas Open Bitcoin Privacy Project Contributor, Blockchain.info Security Engineer, etc. Twitter: @kristovatlas Blog: kristovatlas.com -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
