Bitcoin Optech newsletter #361 is here: - describes a proposal to separate the network connections and peer management used for onion message relay from those used for HTLC relay in LN - CTV+CSFS advantages for PTLCs - Vault output script descriptor - Continued discussion about CTV+CSFS advantages for BitVM - Open letter about CTV and CSFS - OP_CAT enables Winternitz signatures - Commit/reveal function for post-quantum recovery - OP_TXHASH variant with support for transaction sponsorship - Optech Newsletter #361 Recap Podcast Olaluwa Osuntokun posted to Delving Bitcoin about allowing nodes to use separate connections for relaying onion messages than they use for relaying HTLCs... Developers continued a previous discussion about the benefits of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV), OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS), or both together for various deployed and imagined protocols... Sjors Provoost posted to Delving Bitcoin to discuss how the recovery information for a wallet using vaults could be specified using an output script descriptor... Developers continued the previous discussion about how the availability of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS) opcodes could “reduce [BitVM] transaction sizes by approximately 10x” and allow non-interactive peg-ins... James O’Beirne posted an open letter to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing signed by 66 individuals (as of this writing), many of them contributors to Bitcoin-related projects... Developer Conduition posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list a prototype implementation that uses the proposed OP_CAT opcode and other Script instructions to allow quantum-resistant signatures using the Winternitz protocol to be verified by consensus logic... Tadge Dryja posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list a method for allowing individuals to spend UTXOs using quantum-vulnerable signature algorithms even if fast quantum computers would otherwise allow redirecting (stealing) the output of any attempted spend... Steven Roose posted to Delving Bitcoin about a variation on OP_TXHASH called TXSIGHASH that extends 64-byte schnorr signatures with additional bytes to indicate what fields in the transaction (or related transactions) the signature commits to... Bitcoin Optech will host an audio recap discussion of this newsletter on Riverside.fm Tuesday at 16:30 UTC. Join us to discuss or ask questions!
Earlier today Daniela Brozzoni and Naiyoma joined @Murch and @schmidty to discuss Newsletter #360: - Fingerprinting Bitcoin Core nodes - Descriptors and BIP380 - Questions from the bitcoin stack exchange about blocking knots nodes, OP_CAT, compact blocks, selfish mining - And more Catch up:
Bitcoin Optech newsletter #360 is here: - summarizes research about fingerprinting full nodes using P2P protocol messages - seeks feedback about possibly removing support for H in BIP32 paths in the BIP380 specification of descriptors - summarizes popular Q&A from Stack Exchange - Optech Newsletter #360 Recap Podcast Daniela Brozzoni posted to Delving Bitcoin about research she conducted with developer Naiyoma into identifying the same node on multiple networks using the addr messages it sends... Ava Chow posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list to ask whether any software generates descriptors using uppercase-H to indicate a hardened BIP32 key derivation step... Selected Q&A from Bitcoin Stack Exchange: - Is there any way to block Bitcoin Knots nodes as my peers? - What does OP_CAT do with integers? - Async Block Relaying With Compact Block Relay (BIP152) - Why is attacker revenue in selfish mining disproportional to its hash-power? Bitcoin Optech will host an audio recap discussion of this newsletter on Riverside.fm Tuesday at 16:30 UTC. Join us to discuss or ask questions!
Earlier today, Bryan Bishop, Robin Linus, and Rene Pickhardt joined @Murch and @schmidty to cover: - Restricting access to Bitcoin Core Project discussion - Garbled circuits and BitVM3 - Updates on Lightning channel rebalancing research - Cove Wallet, Liana, Stratum v2 STARK proofs, Breez - And more! Catch up:
Bitcoin Optech newsletter #358 is here: - describes how the selfish mining danger threshold can be calculated - summarizes an idea about preventing filtering of high feerate transactions - seeks feedback about a proposed change to BIP390 musig() descriptors - announces a new library for encrypting descriptors - recaps the "Separate UTXO set access from validation functions" PR Review Meeting - adds a Selfish Mining topic - Optech Newsletter #358 Recap Antoine Poinsot posted to Delving Bitcoin an expansion of the math from the 2013 paper that gave the selfish mining attack its name... Peter Todd posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list about a mechanism that would allow nodes to drop peers that are filtering high-feerate transactions... Ava Chow posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list to ask if anyone objected to updating BIP390 to allow musig() expressions in output script descriptors to contain the same participant public key more than once... Josh Doman posted to Delving Bitcoin to announce a library he’s built that encrypts the sensitive parts of an output script descriptor or miniscript to the public keys contained within it... 'Separate UTXO set access from validation functions' is a PR by TheCharlatan that allows calling validation functions by passing just the required UTXOs, instead of requiring the complete UTXO set. It is part of the bitcoinkernel project... Selfish mining allows a miner (or cartel of miners) controlling less than a majority of hashrate to keep more block reward per unit of work than the majority of honest miners... Bitcoin Optech will host an audio recap discussion of this newsletter on Riverside.fm Tuesday at 16:30 UTC. Join us to discuss or ask questions!
Jose SK, Clara Shikhelman, Vojtěch Strnad, Robin Linus, and Dan Gould joined @Murch and @schmidty to discuss: - Syncing full nodes without witnesses - Quantum computing report - Transaction weight limit with exception to prevent confiscation - Removing outputs from the UTXO set based on value and time - And More… Catch up:
Bitcoin Optech newsletter #357 is here: - shares an analysis about syncing full nodes without old witnesses - Changing consensus covering: a quantum computing report, transaction weight limits, removing outputs from the UTXO set based on value and time - Optech Newsletter #357 Recap Jose SK posted to Delving Bitcoin a summary of an analysis he performed about the security tradeoffs of allowing newly started full nodes with a particular configuration to avoid downloading some historic blockchain data... Clara Shikhelman posted to Delving Bitcoin the summary of a report she co-authored with Anthony Milton about the risks to Bitcoin users of fast quantum computers, an overview of several pathways to quantum resistance, and an analysis of tradeoffs involved in upgrading the Bitcoin protocol... Vojtěch Strnad posted to Delving Bitcoin to propose the idea for a consensus change to limit the maximum weight of most transactions in a block... Robin Linus posted to Delving Bitcoin to propose a soft fork for removing low-value outputs from the UTXO set after some time... Bitcoin Optech will host an audio recap discussion of this newsletter on Riverside.fm Tuesday at 16:30 UTC. Join us to discuss or ask questions!
Earlier today, @Murch and @schmidty were joined by Carla Kirk-Cohen, Joost Jager, and Elias Rohrer to discuss #356: - Attributable failures and LN privacy - Several P2P and policy questions from the Bitcoin Stack Exchange - And more! Catch up:
Last week Dave Harding was joined by Alex Myers and Rodolfo Novak to discuss Newsletter #355: - Cake Wallet, Sparrow, Safe Wallet, COLDCARD, tx batching using payjoin, JoinMarket fidelity bonds, Bitcoin opcode documentation, Bitkey open sourced - LND and CLN releases - Bitcoin Core, CLN and LND PRs Catch up:
Bitcoin Optech newsletter #356 is here: - summarizes a discussion about the possible effects of attributable failures on LN privacy - summarizes popular Q&A from Stack Exchange - adds an attributable failures topic - Optech Newsletter #356 Recap Podcast Carla Kirk-Cohen posted to Delving Bitcoin an analysis of the possible consequences for the privacy of LN spenders and receivers if the network adopts attributable failures, particularly telling the spender the amount of time it took to forward a payment at each hop... Selected Q&A from Bitcoin Stack Exchange: - Which transactions get into blockreconstructionextratxn? - Why would anyone use OP_RETURN over inscriptions, aside from fees? - Why is my Bitcoin node not receiving incoming connections? - How do I configure my node to filter out transactions larger than 400 bytes? - What does “not publicly routable” node in Bitcoin Core P2P mean? - Why would a node would ever relay a transaction? - Is selfish mining still an option with compact blocks and FIBRE? Attributable failures are LN payment forwarding failures or delays that can be attributed to a pair of nodes, allowing spenders to avoid using slow or failure-prone nodes for future payments... Bitcoin Optech will host an audio recap discussion of this newsletter on Riverside.fm Tuesday at 16:30 UTC. Join us to discuss or ask questions!