📅 Original date posted:2019-06-29 📝 Original message:Even if the difference is ...

Jonathan Underwood [ARCHIVE] /

npub1axv…ftr0

2023-06-07 18:18:53

in reply to nevent1q…fh88

📅 Original date posted:2019-06-29
📝 Original message:Even if the difference is apparent outside the signed data (in the output).
Signing the data explicitly is more secure.

ie. if some sort of vulnerability / way to break this system for 1-of-1
multisig is found, someone who signed a single sig xpub whitelist will not
be exposed.

2019年6月29日(土) 13:43 Dmitry Petukhov <dp at simplexum.com>:

> В Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:19:41 +0900
> Jonathan Underwood <junderwood at bitcoinbank.co.jp> пишет:
>
> > > Other note: you have 'unused' value of 1 for `m` in your scheme, why
> > > not require m=1 for single-sig case, and use 0 as indicator that
> > > there are a serlal number following it?
> > >
> >
> > 0x00 is single sig, aka, OP_CHECKSIG
> >
> > 0x01 is multisig, aka, 1-of-3, 1-of-2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
>
> This informatin is available in per-output redeem/witness script,
> signer will be able to distinguish between multisig/single-sig by
> looking at this script. I think it only need to know the total number
> of keys participating in the signing, and check that this number
> matches the particulars of redeem/witness script.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190629/04fd8336/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1axv7m5dyyrnatcvmu7rse0860x9mnr95prje9x32rqvperr0rhhqp0ftr0

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:18:53

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "b46df3a2e1008f11f0c80e35e1871f383fb831608fc6925c146e692b20cae393", "pubkey": "e999edd1a420e7d5e19be7870cbcfa798bb98cb408e5929a2a18181c8c6f1dee", "created_at": 1686161933, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "6dc430ad1a240d08cd6de3f78de0f3da923f2f5e843db09c88b3e0382b00b332", "", "root" ], [ "e", "fd07068855814b12b5266e00cca60c2d1851a063444d72df494842f389799cc7", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "78f5a82a0b64fb3c18bd33a69c53b1af612b3ac8dd81e12f74ba62f3793dac05" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-06-29\n📝 Original message:Even if the difference is apparent outside the signed data (in the output).\nSigning the data explicitly is more secure.\n\nie. if some sort of vulnerability / way to break this system for 1-of-1\nmultisig is found, someone who signed a single sig xpub whitelist will not\nbe exposed.\n\n2019年6月29日(土) 13:43 Dmitry Petukhov \u003cdp at simplexum.com\u003e:\n\n\u003e В Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:19:41 +0900\n\u003e Jonathan Underwood \u003cjunderwood at bitcoinbank.co.jp\u003e пишет:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Other note: you have 'unused' value of 1 for `m` in your scheme, why\n\u003e \u003e \u003e not require m=1 for single-sig case, and use 0 as indicator that\n\u003e \u003e \u003e there are a serlal number following it?\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 0x00 is single sig, aka, OP_CHECKSIG\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 0x01 is multisig, aka, 1-of-3, 1-of-2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG\n\u003e\n\u003e This informatin is available in per-output redeem/witness script,\n\u003e signer will be able to distinguish between multisig/single-sig by\n\u003e looking at this script. I think it only need to know the total number\n\u003e of keys participating in the signing, and check that this number\n\u003e matches the particulars of redeem/witness script.\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190629/04fd8336/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "911b2fb2410c4173f97d7efbb1d9e731574fd44d344953169de488f3118a5b88449cefc6265612374095908633f24355c649f4ce91c4b12f1edfa917122bac89" }