📅 Original date posted:2018-01-27 📝 Original message:Gah, please no. I see no ...

Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /

npub1e46…xmcu

2023-06-07 18:10:11

in reply to nevent1q…gygd

📅 Original date posted:2018-01-27
📝 Original message:Gah, please no. I see no material reason why cross-input signature aggregation shouldn't have the signatures in the first n-1 inputs replaced with something like a single-byte push where a signature is required to indicate aggregation, and the combined signature in the last input at whatever position the signature is required.

On January 27, 2018 5:07:25 PM UTC, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
-snip-
>Cross-input signature aggregation probably requires a new field to be
>added
>to the P2P transaction structure to hold the aggregated signature,
>since
>there isn't really a good place to put it in the existing structure
>(there
>are games you can play to make it fit, but I think it is worthwhile).
>The
>obvious way add block commitments to a new tx field is via the witness
>reserved value mechanism present in BIP 141. At this point I think
>there
>will be some leeway to adjust the discount on the weight of this new
>aggregated signature tx field so that even a single input taproot using
>the
>aggregated signature system (here an aggregation of 1 signature) ends
>up no
>more expensive than a single input segwit P2WPKH.

Author Public Key

npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:10:11

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "202b9034965813e369f037acbd5f5325df2c34763a379bb92aa8fcfa981400f8", "pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba", "created_at": 1686161411, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "3098b6cd22aeee78f0db7c45c94594dc578b6094452b2f8e3129789af2cd6fd4", "", "root" ], [ "e", "c8c1948e8999728369efdde0a64d7a6deb6322e82ddaafa9a90712c29ad6c0b3", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-27\n📝 Original message:Gah, please no. I see no material reason why cross-input signature aggregation shouldn't have the signatures in the first n-1 inputs replaced with something like a single-byte push where a signature is required to indicate aggregation, and the combined signature in the last input at whatever position the signature is required.\n\nOn January 27, 2018 5:07:25 PM UTC, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n-snip-\n\u003eCross-input signature aggregation probably requires a new field to be\n\u003eadded\n\u003eto the P2P transaction structure to hold the aggregated signature,\n\u003esince\n\u003ethere isn't really a good place to put it in the existing structure\n\u003e(there\n\u003eare games you can play to make it fit, but I think it is worthwhile). \n\u003eThe\n\u003eobvious way add block commitments to a new tx field is via the witness\n\u003ereserved value mechanism present in BIP 141. At this point I think\n\u003ethere\n\u003ewill be some leeway to adjust the discount on the weight of this new\n\u003eaggregated signature tx field so that even a single input taproot using\n\u003ethe\n\u003eaggregated signature system (here an aggregation of 1 signature) ends\n\u003eup no\n\u003emore expensive than a single input segwit P2WPKH.", "sig": "2b4139ef18c66259f4f67451a5fe7208b72691106903990905bbb2f28c268442e27558969f69fe756dfdbbe28e0d3604ae87f19791a2ebadfcb88a7821ee36c9" }