Add silentpayments (BIP352) module #1471
Conversation
|
Thanks for starting this! Will review. Just wanted to comment that I've made a round of edits to the BIP and it is now updated with the new hashing method (along with the tests).
The hash is calculated as hash(outpointL || Asum). Since it commits to the sum of input public keys used, seems like it might make sense to move it into the module? Otherwise, we'd have to do something like calculate the sum of the public keys, return that to the caller so that they can calculate an input hash and then send it back to us. |
👍
Yes, I agree. A naive solution based on the current PR state would be to provide another function for calculating the input hash and leave the others as they are, but then we would need to pass the input pubkeys and calculate the pubkey sum twice (once for the input hash, and once for the pubkey tweak data), which should be avoided. I guess we want to introduce a function for calculating |
(I need to actually review your implementation, but..) I don't think we need to do it twice? On the sender side, you pass in the private keys, add those up (call it |
Oh indeed, I missed that after calculating the sum of private keys, summing up the pubkeys is not necessary anymore. So if I'm not overlooking something, the interface change should be as simple as replacing the "outpointhash" parameter in the tweak functions with an "outpoint_L" parameter. Will tackle that in a bit. |
theStack
force-pushed
the
silentpayments-module-demo
branch
from
0e733b1
to
4baa5dc
Compare
theStack
force-pushed
the
silentpayments-module-demo
branch
from
4baa5dc
to
c9e94c1
Compare
|
I've force-pushed with a version that is now up to date with the latest state of the BIP, and updated the PR description accordingly. Labels support is also included, and all the test vectors from the BIP pass. The tests are still run from a Python script that directly interacts with the shared library via ctypes, I'll hopefully have something ready soon to create the actual tests in tests_impl.h from that automatically. The code was changed in many places to operate internal data types and functions in the routines (e.g. secp256k1_ge instead of secp256k1_pubkey, secp256k1_scalar instead of uchar-pointers to 32-byte chunks), which seems to make more sense and have less overhead. (The previous version of the PR is still available here: https://github.com/theStack/secp256k1/tree/silentpayments-module-demo_old) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great! Did a quick pass, mostly spelling and wording nits.
Another thought I had (need to actually re-review more carefully to confirm) is we might be able to minimize the de-serializations of keys (moving from bytes -> point). From my understanding, this is one of the "expensive" operations as it involves calculating the y value. This would mean either combining things into larger routines, or having the functions return points instead of serialized pubkeys. Curious what you think @theStack
include/secp256k1_silentpayments.h
Outdated
| * If necessary, the public keys are negated to enforce the right y-parity. | ||
| * For that reason, the public keys have to be passed in via two different parameter | ||
| * pairs, depending on whether they were used for creating taproot outputs or not. | ||
| * The resulting data is needed to create a shared secret for the receiver's side. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this? By definition, taproot public keys have even y-parity. My understanding is that this only an issue when dealing with private keys, since for a given x-only public key there are two possible private keys (d, and n - d and we need to make sure we pick the correct private key (the one that produces a point with even parity).
We could just have the caller pass in one list of public keys (which means they would have already converted them to compressed keys by prefixing them with 0x02.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, you're totally right! Not sure what I was thinking when writing this ("Lord forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing"...) 🙈 that's actually good news, as it results in less complex code.
We could just have the caller pass in one list of public keys (which means they would have already converted them to compressed keys by prefixing them with 0x02.
Not sure about that part. For the module it would simplify the interface a lot, but do we want users needing to fiddle around manually with pubkey data (even if its only prepending a single byte)? See also the discussion in #1427 (comment)
In contrast to private keys which are always just 32-bytes long for our purposes, public keys come in different sizes (33, 65 and 32 bytes) and formats ("full", x-only). The question arises how a user would pass in those different types in a single function call. Should we
- Pass in two lists, one of the type secp256k1_pubkey, another one of the type secp256k1_xonly_pubkey? (The user would need to call the corresponding parse functions before, obviously)
- Provide a function that let's the user convert xonly-pubkeys to pubkeys first (in this context, this should be simple by just prepending a 0x02 byte, IIUC) and then only take a single list of secp256k1_pubkey elements?
- Something else?
and @jonasnick's answer below:
Passing two lists seems like an okay approach. Conversion functions may just lead to additional confusion. Without them, we maintain this relatively straightforward model:
xonly pubkey encoding -> use xonly_parse -> use in functions that accept xonly_pubkeys compressed pubkey encoding -> use ec_pubkey_parse -> use in functions that accept ec_pubkeys
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the link to the discussion! Reading through that again, I agree it's probably better to just have two lists: one for public keys and another for x-only public keys. Despite a more complicated API, it does make the module more user friendly in that users can pass arguments directly without needing to do any preprocessing.
|
@josibake: Thanks for the initial review, very much appreciated!
Good point, that's also something I've been asking myself. I think the expensive part of calculating the y-value only applies for loading |
|
Force-pushed with the following changes:
|
theStack
force-pushed
the
silentpayments-module-demo
branch
from
c9e94c1
to
fa96a4a
Compare
Yep! Sorry, my original comment wasn't very clear. But to be precise, what I'm referring to is anytime we have to de-serialize a public key encoding into a point (be it compressed or x-only), we need to calculate a At a quick glance, it looks like you addressed this in your most recent push! |
Thinking about this a bit more, the errors that can happen are:
I think in all cases the expected user behavior is to move on. For the sender, if they run into any of these errors they would need to pick a different set of inputs (i.e. make a new transaction). For the receiver, their only recourse is to skip the transaction. I'm not sure what the added value to the user is here if we return different error codes. |
| * n_xonly_pubkeys: the number of taproot input public keys | ||
| * outpoint_smallest36: serialized smallest outpoint | ||
| */ | ||
| SECP256K1_API SECP256K1_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT int secp256k1_silentpayments_create_public_tweak_data( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in 2290e80:
This function covers a very important use case: preparing public transaction input data so that it can be served to a light client (a light client in this scenario is any client that does not have access to the blockchain but does have access to their b_scan private key).
However, if used by a full node client, this function would cause the receiver to do two ECC multiplications:
A_sum * input_hash_scalar(A_sum * input_hash_Scalar) * b_scan
In d725050 the sender only does one ECC multiplication by first doing the less expensive scalar multiplication of a_sum * input_hash_scalar.
What if we had a single function that is used by both the sender and receiver, e.g.silentpayments_create_shared_secret, which takes the input_hash_scalar as an input and a private key (can be b_scan or a_sum) as inputs along with a public key (can be A_sum or B_scan). This function would multiply the private key and scalar and then do the ECDH step. We would then need separate function for the light client receiver only which takes b_scan and A_tweaked and does the ECDH step.
Just brainstorming, open to other suggestions! Also might be prematurely optimizing but from what I understand ECC Multiplication is expensive, so keeping it to one for both sender and receiver seems worth it even at this stage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point! I assumed that full node clients using silent payments would usually also be interested in the public tweak data to maintain a tweak index (like e.g. bitcoin/bitcoin#28241), both for the purpose of serving the data to light clients and for faster silent payment rescans, but didn't consider that this might not be the case for all full nodes.
What if we had a single function that is used by both the sender and receiver, e.g.silentpayments_create_shared_secret, which takes the input_hash_scalar as an input and a private key (can be b_scan or a_sum) as inputs along with a public key (can be A_sum or B_scan). This function would multiply the private key and scalar and then do the ECDH step. We would then need separate function for the light client receiver only which takes b_scan and A_tweaked and does the ECDH step.
Seems reasonable, though currently we don't expose input_hash_scalar, so we'd need extra routines to also calculate that. Have to think more about it, open for all suggestions. Glad that the interface discussion is unleashed!
Just brainstorming, open to other suggestions! Also might be prematurely optimizing but from what I understand ECC Multiplication is expensive, so keeping it to one for both sender and receiver seems worth it even at this stage.
Agree that we should avoid these extra multiplications if possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have to think more about it, open for all suggestions. Glad that the interface discussion is unleashed!
Yeah, what I suggested is pretty half baked! I'll also give this a more thorough think and share my thoughts. Happy to keep the discussion here (easier to reference things concretely), or we can move it to the linked issue if you prefer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have to think more about it, open for all suggestions. Glad that the interface discussion is unleashed!
Yeah, what I suggested is pretty half baked! I'll also give this a more thorough think and share my thoughts. Happy to keep the discussion here (easier to reference things concretely), or we can move it to the linked issue if you prefer.
No strong preference for issue or PR as discussion platform either, it's fine to keep it here for me as well!
I still haven't come up with something concrete yet, but am planning to study BIP327 and it's secp256k1 module PR (#1479), as it might give some ideas, both regarding interface and concrete implementation. Haven't looked deeper, but I see that a dedicated caching data type is introduced there to avoid recomputations, maybe something like that could be useful for a BIP352 interface too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One easy possibility to avoid the extra point multiplication on the receiver side for full node clients:
- change
_create_public_tweak_datato only calculate and return a tuple (A_sum, input_hash), without doing the multiplication. E.g. with a new struct data type:
typedef struct {
secp256k1_pubkey pubkey_sum;
unsigned char input_hash[32];
} secp256k1_silentpayments_pubkey_tweak_data;
- change
_receive_create_shared_secretto take an instance of this struct (instead of$A_{tweaked}$ ) accordingly, e.g.:
int secp256k1_silentpayments_receive_create_shared_secret(
const secp256k1_context *ctx,
unsigned char *shared_secret33,
const secp256k1_silentpayments_pubkey_tweak_data *public_tweak_data,
const unsigned char *receiver_scan_seckey
)
In that function, the shared secret would then be calculated via
That would be a straightforward change. The only thing needed then for light clients (or nodes that want to create a silent payments tweak index) is an additional routine to calculate _pubkey_tweak_data instance, and a possibility to calculate the shared secret from that pubkey_tweak_data instance) and pubkey_tweak_data structure to be also able to calculate and hold
Just some ideas and mostly thinking out loud, happy to receive further input.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change _create_public_tweak_data to only calculate and return a tuple (A_sum, input_hash)
This is how I did it in #28122 and this seemed to work well. This would also allow us to simplify things a bit and use a single routine for shared secret creation for both sender and receiver:
typedef struct {
secp256k1_pubkey pubkey;
unsigned char input_hash[32];
} secp256k1_silentpayments_pubkey_tweak_data;
int secp256k1_silentpayments_create_shared_secret(
const secp256k1_context *ctx,
unsigned char *shared_secret33,
const secp256k1_silentpayments_pubkey_tweak_data *public_tweak_data,
const unsigned char *seckey
)
where pubkey represents either the pubkey sum or the receivers scan public key and seckey represents either the senders secret key sum or the receivers scan private key. I think this would require modifying your _sender routines a bit, e.g. have the sender routine first sum the secret keys and then call the shared routine _silentpayments_create_shared_secret.
For the receiver, yes, I think we would need the two routines you mentioned:
- one for creating
$A_{tweaked}$ (i.e.$A_{tweaked} = inputhash * A_{sum}$ ) - one for creating a shared secret from
$A_{tweaked}$ (i.e.$SS = b_{scan} * A_{tweaked}$ )
These could also be the same routine since they are essentially doing the same thing (unsigned char data[33], either to be written to an index/sent to light clients or hashed with
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is how I did it in bitcoin/bitcoin#28122 and this seemed to work well. This would also allow us to simplify things a bit and use a single routine for shared secret creation for both sender and receiver:
...
Consolidating the API to a single shared secret creation function for both directions would be nice indeed. One drawback could be though that it is likely more confusing for the user and it's a bit easier to use it wrong; since the paramters can't be named exactly after what is expected anymore (e.g. receiver_scan_pubkey), they have to have more generic names (e.g. pubkey_part, privkey_part or sth alike), as it now depends on the direction. But that can (hopefully) be compensated by good API documentation? Not sure yet, but I think we should give it a try.
Even the shared secret creation for light clients (passing input_hash is NULL, that signals that the tweak is already included in the passed pubkey). Another suggestions based on that, where the newly introduced struct from the previous comment doesn't exist anymore:
Tweak data creation:
_create_private_tweak_data -> returns (a_sum, input_hash)
_create_public_tweak_data -> returns (A_sum, input_hash)
Shared secret creation:
Sender: _create_shared_secret(..., ..., B_scan, a_sum, input_hash)
Receiver (Full node): _create_shared_secret(..., ..., A_sum, b_scan, input_hash)
Receiver (Light client): _create_shared_secret(..., ..., A_tweaked, b_scan, NULL)
For the receiver, yes, I think we would need the two routines you mentioned:
- one for creating Atweaked (i.e. Atweaked=inputhash∗Asum)
- one for creating a shared secret from Atweaked (i.e. SS=bscan∗Atweaked)
These could also be the same routine since they are essentially doing the same thing (d∗P) and both return
unsigned char data[33], either to be written to an index/sent to light clients or hashed with k to create an output. What do you think?
Those two calculations are different in the sense that the shared secret creation one does a full ECDH including the call of the ECDH hash function, while the other one is just a normal point multiplication (less critical, as there is no secret key material involved, IIUC). So I think a dedicated routine for creating A_tweaked from (input_hash, A_sum) is still needed. For that one, it probably makes sense to include the serialization to the 33-bytes already, as the user would need to do that for storing it in an index or sending it to the light client anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One drawback could be though that it is likely more confusing for the user and it's a bit easier to use it wrong; since the paramters can't be named exactly after what is expected anymore
True, but as you said, I think we can address this with good documentation. Another for using the same routine for both sender and receiver is we ensure that sender and receiver will arrive at the same shared secret (provided they give correct inputs), since they are using the same routine. If we use separate routines, there is a small chance of introducing a bug in one of the routines that would cause the sender and receiver to arrive at different shared secrets despite giving the correct inputs.
Even the shared secret creation for light clients (passing ) case could be done by that same routine, by making one parameter optional (i.e. if input_hash is NULL, that signals that the tweak is already included in the passed pubkey)
Also not a bad idea! I'd say we can go with this for now and always revert to multiple routines if there are objections.
Those two calculations are different in the sense that the shared secret creation one does a full ECDH including the call of the ECDH hash function, while the other one is just a normal point multiplication
Good point, I forgot about that. I think the main difference here is that ECDH is done in constant time whereas point multiplication is not. Regardless, you're correct that these should remain separate routines and I agree we should just return the 33 byte serialized pubkey for the routine creating the light client/index data.
Leaving 2. aside (from what I understand, it's fine to just ignore those unlikely hash-not-within-curve-order cases), I think the difference between 1. and 3. is that the first suggests that the user is using the API in a wrong way (i.e. shouldn't ever happen in a correct implementation), while 3. can be triggered externally for the pubkey sum case, see below.
Yeah, I tend to agree. The rationale behind introducing those TODOs was to consider differentiating between the cases "invalid input data is passed", indicating that the user did something wrong (case 1 above) and "the individual input data passed is fine, but we still can't continue" (case 3 above). Since the transactions appearing in the mempool / block chain are not in the control of the user, such a "point of infinity" case could be triggered externally in the course of scanning for silent payments. In Bitcoin Core, at some places we call secp256k1 functions with an additional In case of the pubkey tweak data creation routine, that would be a mistake as an external transaction could make a node crash in the course of e.g. the silent payment index creation. I guess we can avoid this though by just properly documenting in the API that the return code 0 also could mean "tx is not eligible for silent payments"? Maybe I'm overthinking here and users would hopefully always check for return values for more complex routines. |
This is a good point. In theory, a user could recover from case 1, which at that point I'd agree we need two error codes: one to indicate that the user needs to do something different with the current transaction in order to proceed, and another to indicated the can't do anything with the current transaction and it needs to be skipped. In practice, I don't think case 1 is likely to happen often since the inputs already exist in validated transactions, it's just a matter of correctly extracting them. That being said, I am slightly leaning towards two error codes but I'd also prefer to be consistent with the other modules if we need a tie breaker. I'm curious if there is a general pattern in the library that we can take inspiration from. |
Currently the `run_sqr` test doesn't do anything with the result of the `fe_sqr` call. Improve that by checking that the equation `(x+y)*(x-y) = x^2 - y^2` holds for some random values y, as suggested in issue bitcoin-core#1471 by real-or-random. The existing loop for generating the x values is kept as-is.
This commit contains the secp256k1 draft PR bitcoin#1471 (bitcoin-core/secp256k1#1471) applied on tag v0.4.0 and squashed, without the BIP352 test running suite in Python.
theStack
force-pushed
the
silentpayments-module-demo
branch
from
fa96a4a
to
3deeebd
Compare
|
Changed the tweak data creation interfaces to take lists of pointers to seckeys/pubkeys (instead of expecting the data to come in concatenated form), as suggested in the discussion #1471 (comment). Took me a bit to figure out how to properly create the array of pointers with ctypes in the secp256k1 glue module for the Python test-suite, but now everything passes again. |
Yeah, this is basically This is something we need to think about. A goal of the library is to provide safe high-level APIs. I guess we often assume that this is equivalent to avoiding access to low-level operations in the API. But as this functions shows, it's not equivalent. This function is part of a high-level API, but it happens to expose a simple low-level operation... Now, there's nothing wrong with this per se, but people will abuse this for all kinds of things. And let's be honest. If you need a I think the entire module, as proposed, is a bit unusual for libsecp256k1 because it only wraps some ECC operations of a higher-level protocol (as explained in the header). This design makes sense, but it's different from what we usually have in libsecp256k1. You could say that BIP340 signatures are also just some ECC parts of a higher-level protocol "Bitcoin", but the difference is that they implement a common interface of a signature scheme, what people call a cryptographic primitive (like public-key encryption, key exchange, hashing, etc.). But this here is merely the "cryptographic core of silent payments", and it's tightly coupled to it. Again, there's per se nothing wrong with a more low-level module, but I think we'll need to spend some thoughts on how we make it fit the library best. Sometimes the potential for abuse can be reduced by having opaque data types that you can only pass from API function to API function. We do something similar in the proposed musig2 API for example. I think this would be closest to the current spirit of the library. Another design pattern is to have "stage" functions that perform all the different computation that should be done at a specific stage of the protocol. This doesn't seem elegant, but it prevents mistakes where the caller combines the API functions wrongly, e.g., calls them in the wrong order. Off-topic ramblings about the library: So if we expose the And if we had hazmat API, then one could alternatively simply build some libsilentpayments around it, and other applications could do the same. This would certainly help some applications. But it's not obvious that this is the ideal solution. There are multiple related but different questions, e.g., in should stuff be a module, in which repo should it live, who should maintain it, how should it be linked, etc... (And lol, please don't be discouraged by my comments here. I see value in this as a libsecp256k1 module, it's just that the PR makes me think about the bigger picture again...) |
|
Thanks for chiming in @real-or-random , this is exactly the kind of review we are looking for at this stage! As much as possible, we'd like to keep this module in the spirit of the library. I'll take a look at the Musig2 API for inspiration and also spend some more time thinking about the "stages" concept. That feels somewhat closer to what we have now.
This also makes a lot of sense to me as an approach. For example, I've been chatting with the developers of rust-silentpayments about how their library might evolve if there is a
The only thing that discourages me is no comments at all 😄 |
|
Thanks for the valuable feedback @real-or-random, glad that the interface discussion is in full swing!
Doesn't secp256k1 already have a good amount of exposed routines that potentially fall into the "hazmat API" category, especially w.r.t. the tweaking routines? For example, even without a silent payments module, one could say that the disguised To my understanding, secp256k1 as of now provides all the necessary routines for a full BIP352 implementation (Bitcoin Core PR bitcoin/bitcoin#28122 followed that approach before it used this module). The two main reasons for a secp256k1 module (or library using secp256k1, if the libsilentpayments approach is followed) would be AFAICT 1) efficiency and 2) hiding cryptographic complexity from the user. It's kind of embarrassing to only come up with this doubts weeks after starting this implementation, but I only realize now that the potential of point 1) to warrant a module was actually never verified. Assuming we would have a libsilentpayments C library that uses secp256k1 as it is now (i.e. even without any extra hazmat API). Would that even be significantly slower than using a dedicated optimized silent payments module using low-level scalar/ge(j) primitives? Without having numbers, I'd assume that the most expensive operations are by far always the involved point multiplications (e.g. the shared secret creation via ECDH), and for those having a hazmat API wouldn't change much. @josibake: Do you think it makes sense to benchmark the Bitcoin Core PR #28122 before and after it uses this module to compare what the gains are? Happy to investigate this a bit further, if the old version (based on w0xlt's work, AFAIR) is still available somewhere. Trying Sjor's branch for building the index would probably also be interesting to run once with the "pure secp256k1" and once with the "secp256k1-silentpayments" module approach. Even if my simplified performance assumptions above are completely wrong (I wouldn't be surprised if they are :D), I think it would be good to have some benchmark numbers anyway. |
| /** Scan for Silent Payment transaction output (for receiver). | ||
| * | ||
| * Given a shared_secret, a recipient's spend public key B_spend, | ||
| * an output counter k, and a scanned tx's output x-only public key tx_output, | ||
| * calculate the corresponding scanning data: | ||
| * | ||
| * t_k = hash(shared_secret || ser_32(k)) | ||
| * P_output = B_spend + t_k * G [not returned] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the course of writing benchmarks, I just noticed that this scanning API is flawed from a performance perspective, as we currently recalculate direct_match boolean out-parameter would go away (it was a bit weird anyway), as the caller would do the comparison between
|
@real-or-random spent some time digesting your comment and wanted to summarize some thoughts:
In hindsight, I think BIP352 could (should) have been three BIPS:
This way, if we need change how the inputs are chosen in the future, we'd write a small BIP-silent-payments-v1, and nothing about the SPNIMKECDH part would need to change. Conceptually, when talking about a libsecp256k1 module I'm only talking about SPNIMKECDH (i.e. we wouldn't expect a libsecp256k1module to filter transaction inputs to the silent-payments-v0 eligible inputs before performing the SPNIMKECDH protocol). If we start from this assumption and forget about the labels part of silent payments for a second, we could build a high-level API like so: SenderReceiverThis is more of an example than a proposal to demonstrate a few simple function calls and not exposing things that could be abused or used unsafely. The main question here is "would something like this fit as a module for libsecp256k1," considering its not really a generic cryptographic primitive but also not quite the a full silent payments v0 implementation in that the sender and receiver still need to filter the inputs. If the answer is yes, I think we can start from here and figure out how to add labels in sane way (I have a few ideas for labels, both with opaque data types or stages). If the answer is no, then I think looking into other approaches, like a hazmat API is better. I also spent some time thinking about whether or not this could be a more generic "non-interactive-multikey-ecdh" module that is used by a
I think this was more an example of "could" rather than "should." From my understanding, bitcoin core is also a bit of a "privileged" user of secp256k1 and the goal of a module would be something generally useful for wallets outside of bitcoin core. Regarding efficiency, I'd be very surprised if this approach is less efficient than what we were originally doing in core, although IIRC bitcoin core is faster when it comes to hashing? The main advantages of doing it all here w.r.t efficiency is not need to serialize/deserialize all the time from compressed keys to group elements. Regarding benchmarking, I do still have the old version not using this module, if you want to compare with that! Would be nice to see some numbers! |
|
@theStack I started refactoring the API based on #1471 (comment). I've only completed the sender side, but will continue working on the receiver side. The main changes are:
The branch is still a bit rough so some of the comments / commit messages are likely correct. Mostly just looking for conceptual feedback and curious if you have any objections to this approach. The branch is https://github.com/josibake/secp256k1/tree/bip352-api-refactor . I've tried to keep the edits in the relevant commits so that if the changes make sense we can easily incorporate them into your branch. |
Thanks for pushing. A single-function API for sending that takes care of everything (even the scan-pubkey grouping, sort ftw!) seems a good idea to me. What's currently a problem, I think, is that the user doesn't have a way to determine which of the created outputs belong to which recipient. E.g. if the recipients are passed in in the order One solution for this might be to extend the recipient structure by the resulting x-only output key and let the function fill that out, i.e. passing the recipients as in/out-parameter? |
yeah, the more I thought about it, we are already requiring the user to pass all of the keys at once so it didn't seem like we are gaining anything with separate function calls. In the future, it might make sense to have functions to enable sending where the sender does not have access to all of the private keys at once, but that will require a lot more thought and seems out of scope for now.
Good catch, I overlooked this! I took your suggestion of extending the recipient struct and updated the branch. This has the added benefit of simplifying the function signature (i.e. no longer need to pass arguments for Thinking about the receiver API a bit more, I realized we can't assume the receiver has access to the Given this, what do you think about using a callback function for checking if the generated output exists / checking if the label exists? It seems |
Ah indeed, smaller function signature is a nice benefit, especially since the number of parameters was quite high already. 👍 As for the current version: I didn't think about this when I made the suggestion, but now having the generated outputs as pointers within the This should make things much easier imho, as the user only has to allocate memory for a single struct instance per recipient. It should also make the implementation slightly simpler (one loop less). I'm assuming here that creating multiple outputs to the same SP address is rather the exception than the rule. Even if it is used more often, I think repeatedly filling out the same scan/spend keypairs is not a problem for wallets.
Oh, wasn't aware of that. The two examples you state here are only applicable for the non-label case though, right (not even the change address label)? To my understanding, when scanning for labels, we always need all outputs of a tx.
Interesting idea, I'd intuitively assume it's neither a huge for problem for performance nor for other language bindings, but would have to check deeper. |
This is much simpler. Also agree that cases where a sender is creating multiple outputs for the same recipient will likely be rare, and even in those instances it might still make sense to pass the same address multiple times (e.g. to easily match up the generated address back to the requested amount). This ended up being a bit tedious due to the fact that the generated outputs depend on the order of the recipients, but rather than hack around it here, I updated the test vectors to include all possible output sets.
Correct, you do need the tx outputs to scan for labels using the (more efficient) subtraction technique. Worth mentioning you can scan for labels without the tx outputs (e.g. the change label) by just adding the label to each output, but this is really inefficient as the number of labels grows.
I think this makes sense. I'd imagine light clients will not support labels, whereas full nodes will, so it seems reasonable to provide two interfaces. Still mulling over the callbacks idea, will try to have a concrete proposal over the next few days. I've updated the branch in the meanwhile with the sending changes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@josibake I had a quick look at the API in your branch, a few minor comments:
- The In/Out parameter
secp256k1_silentpayments_recipientseems a bit strange. Why not just group by index?secp256k1_silentpayments_recipientcould just contain the scan and spend pks, and the i-th generated output would correspond to the i-th providedsecp256k1_silentpayments_recipient? - Instead of taking a
const unsigned char * const *taproot_seckeysargument and multiplying each seckey with base point G to see if it needs to be negated, you could accept an array ofsecp256k1_xonly_keypair, which holds both the seckey and the pubkey. Often the caller will already have the pubkey and would, if the function wouldn't acceptxonly_keypair, do a costly recomputation of the public key unnecessarily. If the caller doesn't have anxonly_keypair, they can just create one. - I can imagine that others disagree, but I wouldn't add another
sign32function if the spend key can just be tweaked via somekeypair_tweakfunction and then given to the regularschnorrsig_sign32function. Then this would be the same workflow for a silent payments derived key to sign viaschnorrsig_custom. And a similar workflow for the musig module (where tweaking happens viasecp256k1_musig_pubkey_tweak_add.
| * In: shared_secret33: shared secret, derived from either sender's | ||
| * or receiver's perspective with routines from above |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only from the sender's perspective since only the sender calls this (as per the first sentence in the doc), right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed _sender_ from the name in my refactor branch since this function can be used by the sender when creating outputs and also by the receiver when scanning without access to the transaction outputs (e.g. light clients).
|
Thanks for the review, @jonasnick !
IIUC, this means bringing back the out param
Great point, this was on my list of things to change but I forgot to include it!
I agree. The silent payments protocol doesn't really have anything to do with signing because once the spend key is tweaked, it is just a regular taproot output. My initial thinking was not wanting to expose any low level tweaking functions in the module, but based on the recent IRC discussion regarding a hazmat API, this seems less of a concern. |
@josibake I missed that the function sorts internally. I had only looked at the API, but the BIP clearly states "Group receiver silent payment addresses by B_scan". So it seems like the purpose of sorting is to make sure that any two tuples So I guess an alternative would be:
Just thinking aloud. I don't think this is clearly better than having an In/Out argument as you had designed it. EDIT: Actually, I think there's a case to be made that the caller organizing the recipient array correctly before calling the function (i.e., my suggested alternative) is cleaner than having the caller scan through the output of the function to find the correct scanning key and the corresponding |
Yep! This is because the counter
IIUC, heapsort is unstable which means if the caller groups and passes in the tuples |
|
@theStack I pushed a refactor of the recipient API to https://github.com/josibake/secp256k1/tree/bip352-api-refactor, let me know what you think. Most notably, it allows for the receiver to scan the transaction in a single call (vs scanning each output individually and managing values of I also removed the For clients that do not have access to the transaction outputs (e.g. a BIP158 client), they are able to scan using the @jonasnick (since you've been looking at the API), one thing that's kinda gross about this approach is the |
It's not abstracted away completely though because, as far as I understand, the caller needs to search through the In/Out recipients array to find the right Anyway, my suggestion is flawed because it would actually require the caller to sort instead of just grouping the inputs recipients correctly.
You mean Speaking of the API, what's the reason for exposing create_shared_secret to the user instead of just calling it internally in |
You mean to match up the original
For the sender, no reason.
That being said, open to suggestions on how we could lock down the API even further! |
Thanks, looks good at a first glance, will go deeper in a bit. One thing I wondered: if an output is found with a direct match, what is the I agree that the way the result is returned via That would save the user the headache of allocating memory twice and lead to an interface with less parameters (e.g. the // EDIT: the "too slow" problem could be mitigated by having an out-param that returns if any output was found at all. If it is set to zero, the caller doesn't have to bother with inspecting the result and can just continue scanning the next tx. From an organizational point of view, do you think it makes sense to open a new PR for the refactored branch soon? This PR's description doesn't match the new high-level module approach anymore and with soon reaching >100 comments, it also will start to suffer from the typical github UI problems soon. Would also be nice being able to directly leave code review comments for refactored API. The drawback is that we'd lose some of the previous discussion (or, at least it's harder to find). |
Oops! That was an oversight. It would only be set if the output found contained a label, not set in the case of a direct match. The idea was to make it easy for the caller to match up the output to the correct label, but something else I considered is making that the responsibility of the callback function.
I’ll defer to the libsecp maintainers on what they prefer. For me, I don’t mind merging the branch into this PR and updating the description, but I’m also happy to open an entirely new PR. Whichever is easiest! Will read the rest of your comment more carefully and respond later. |
I think this makes more sense than what I have now. Currently, the caller already needs to allocate |
I'm starting to agree, my only concern is I'd still want the sending function to verify that the addresses are in the correct groupings and fail otherwise. Sorting seemed like the easiest way to do this, but another idea is something like the following: Essentially, anytime there is a scan key change, check the remainder of the list to see if the last seen scan key shows up again. This wouldn't change ordering of the list, but the downside is that the check is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean to match up the original sp1qxxx: amount address to the correct generated output?
Yes.
This wouldn't change ordering of the list, but the downside is that the check is O(n^2) in the worst case.
I would try to avoid adding a function with O(n^2) complexity.
Here's yet another alternative, which adds an index field to the recipient list, sorts the recipients inside the sender_create_outputs but returns the generated_output at the "right" position:
/* In param */
typedef struct {
secp256k1_pubkey scan_pubkey;
secp256k1_pubkey spend_pubkey;
size_t idx;
} secp256k1_silentpayments_recipient;
int secp256k1_silentpayments_sender_create_outputs(secp256k1_xonly_pubkey *generated_output, secp256k1_silentpayments_recipient **recipients) {
/* sort based on (scan_pubkey, spend_pubkey) */
recipients = sort(recipients)
for rec in recipient {
generated_output[rec->idx] = create_output(...)
}
}
This modifies the recipient array which may still be annoying for the caller. Of course, the caller can just copy the array to avoid that. Or we could sort it back based on the idx field, but that seems to be overkill. Would the Bitcoin Core implementation require the order of the recipient array unmodified?
The caller would be responsible for setting idx to the right value, but this could be easily checked in sender_create_outputs.
From an organizational point of view, do you think it makes sense to open a new PR for the refactored branch soon?
I’ll defer to the libsecp maintainers on what they prefer.
I have a slight preference for opening a new PR since josi's branch is more a rewrite than a refactor and a lot of the discussion in this PR doesn't apply.
I don't see advantage of this. Wouldn't it be an equal amount of work to scan the transaction with each scan secret key and generate the shared secret internally?
If you can run create_shared_secret on the HSM, why couldn't you run receiver_scan_outputs?
I see. Or have |
I misspoke, it’s not the shared secret part, but the summing of the input public keys that would duplicated work when scanning with multiple scan keys. So it seems we could have a Regarding an HSM, I suppose there’s nothing stopping it from taking everything it needs to scan the transaction since the data needed will always be less than the maximum transaction size.
I think for this to work the client would need to know the total number of outputs in the transaction to avoid needing to redo ECDH in the event they don’t generate enough pubkeys the first time. However, if we assume the client knows the total number of outputs, we could make this function more closely match the (apologies for any typos, doing this on a phone) |
I've opened #1519 as a new PR, which attempts to incorporate all of the outstanding feedback here and includes a few new ideas. |
Let's close this one then. |
This PR adds a new Silent Payments (BIP352) module to secp256k1. The following routines are provided ($a_i$ are input private keys, $A_i$ are input public keys, $b$ and $B$ denote recipient privkeys/pubkeys that would be encoded in silent payment addresses, $d$ and $P$ the keypair for the actual transaction taproot x-only output):
_create_private_tweak_data_create_public_tweak_data_create_tweaked_pubkey_create_shared_secret(Sender:
Receiver:
Lightclient:
_create_label_tweak_create_address_spend_pubkey_sender_create_output_pubkey_receiver_scan_outputif
_create_output_seckeywhere
For ending up with output key material used for sending to / scanning for / spending from, both sides would follow the chain of
tweak_data -> shared_secret -> output key. The public tweak data can be useful for faster scanning of output transactions by storing them in an index, see e.g. Bitcoin Core PR bitcoin/bitcoin#28241. Private tweak data is arguably less useful, so in theory one could collapse the tweak data and shared secret creation functions into a single one, but IMHO it's nicer if the API is symmetric.As discussed in #1427 (comment), the approach of passing in two separate key pairs for taproot and non-taproot inputs is followed here. This may seem a bit confusing at first, but has the advantage that the caller doesn't have to deal with enforcing even y-parity for key material manually (e.g. negating private keys of taproot outputs if they would end up in an odd point), which seems error-prone.
The last commit contains the BIP352 test vectors, converted to C code with a Python script. An earlier version of the tests, directly written in Python (by calling in to the secp256k1 shared library using ctypes) can still be found here: https://github.com/theStack/secp256k1/tree/silentpayments-module-demo_old5