Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BIP draft: OP_TXHASH and OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY #1500

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension


Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
352 changes: 352 additions & 0 deletions bip-txhash.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,352 @@
```
BIP: tbd
Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
Title: OP_TXHASH and OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY
Author: Steven Roose <[email protected]>
Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-tbd
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2023-09-03
License: BSD-3-Clause
Comment on lines +2 to +10
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please incorporate the assigned number, add the README table entry, and add the Post-History header to link to the mailing list discussion or other fora where this proposal was discussed.

```

# Abstract

This BIP proposes two new opcodes, `OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY`, to be activated
as a change to the semantics of `OP_NOP4` in legacy script, segwit and tapscript;
and OP_TXHASH, to be activated as a change to the semantics of `OP_SUCCESS189`
in tapscript only.

These opcodes provide a generalized method for introspecting certain details of
the spending transaction, which enables non-interactive enforcement of certain
properties of the transaction spending a certain UTXO.

The constructions specified in this BIP also open up the way for other
potential updates; see Motivation section for more details.


# Summary

## OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I realize it's traditional, but why are we adding new non-Taproot opcodes? Is there a case where this is desirable?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, bare OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY is really efficient. CTV also adds them. It's 34 bytes output script and 0 bytes witness/scriptsig. As opposed to 34 (spk) + 33 (cb: ver + internal key) + 34 (tapscript) for taproot.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, I forgot that OP_SUCCESSx was only a taproot thing, not a segwit thing. Yuck!

The first new opcode, `OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY`, redefines the `OP_NOP4` opcode (`0xb3`) as a soft fork upgrade.

It has the following semantics:

* There is at least one element on the stack, fail otherwise.
* The element on the stack is at least 32 bytes long, fail otherwise.
* The first 32 bytes are interpreted as the TxHash and the remaining suffix bytes specify the TxFieldSelector.
* If the TxFieldSelector is invalid, fail.
* The actual TxHash of the transaction at the current input index, calculated
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should maybe specify that the element is not popped off the stack, or is that implicit?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, it might be worth mentioning yeah, but I thought it was implicit as the other opcode explicitly mentions that it takes the items from the stack. It's kinda characteristic of a -VERIFY opcode to not touch the stack.

using the given TxFieldSelector must be equal to the first 32 bytes of the
element on the stack, fail otherwise.


## OP_TXHASH

The second new opcode, `OP_TXHASH`, redefines the `OP_SUCCESS189` tapscript opcode (`0xbd`) as a soft fork upgrade.

It has the following semantics:

* There is at least one element on the stack, fail otherwise.
* The element is interpreted as the TxFieldSelector and is popped off the stack.
* If the TxFieldSelector is invalid, fail.
* The 32-byte TxHash of the transaction at the current input index, calculated
using the given TxFieldSelector is pushed onto the stack.

## TxFieldSelector

The TxFieldSelector has the following semantics. We will give a brief conceptual
summary, followed by a reference implementation of the CalculateTxHash function.

* There are two special cases for the TxFieldSelector:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can I suggest that we move the section on the special cases to be after the fundamental atomic selector flags? It's much easier to read this document by building up from the building blocks rather than starting with the template and having to squint to find where all the sub-properties are defined later.

I think the discussion for the optimized case follows very naturally once we understand the components here.

* the empty value, zero bytes long: it is set equal to `TXFS_SPECIAL_TEMPLATE`,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You re-use this term TXFS_SPECIAL_TEMPLATE twice for different things, which is confusing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah sorry, one of them is a typo and should be TXFS_SPECIAL_ALL. Fixing.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"what" is set equal to TXFS_SPECIAL_TEMPLATE? Maybe define what the bytes of the field selector means before the special cases.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I improved this section. What I mean is "The input txfield selector is set from empty to this one, so whatever that one means".

the de-facto default value which means everything except the prevouts and the prevout
scriptPubkeys.

Special case `TXFS_SPECIAL_TEMPLATE` is 4 bytes long, as follows:
* 1: `TXFS_ALL`
* 2: `TXFS_INPUTS_TEMPLATE | TXFS_OUTPUTS_ALL`
* 3: `TXFS_INOUT_NUMBER | TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_ALL`
* 4: `TXFS_INOUT_NUMBER | TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_ALL`

* the `0x00` byte: it is set equal to `TXFS_SPECIAL_ALL`, which means "ALL" and is primarily
useful to emulate `SIGHASH_ALL` when `OP_TXHASH` is used in combination
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, "would be useful if that were proposed which it isn't". I am skeptical of this magic value.

While I understand Russell O'Connor's dislike of runtime OP_SUCCESS, it is a lesser evil here than this kind of guessing of future utility which will no doubt prove suboptimal when we get there.

And for miniscript: sure, it will only generate and decode a push followed by TXHASH. But there are other things it can't decode too, and that's OK.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@stevenroose stevenroose Jan 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the SUCCESS argument has merit, though. Also IMO it's not too much of a pain to pick one of the many SUCCESS opcodes tapscript still has to make a OP_TXHASH2 if really needed. I also don't like that witness input can turn an opcode into a SUCCESS operation for the entire script. This can be tricky when collaboratively constructing scripts.

with `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`.

Special case `TXFS_SPECIAL_ALL` is 4 bytes long, as follows:
* 1: `TXFS_ALL`
* 2: `TXFS_INPUTS_ALL | TXFS_OUTPUTS_ALL`
* 3: `TXFS_INOUT_NUMBER | TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_ALL`
* 4: `TXFS_INOUT_NUMBER | TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_ALL`

* The first byte of the TxFieldSelector has its 8 bits assigned as follows, from lowest to highest:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Found this section very hard to follow. Would it be an idea to more gently introduce an example field selector to show how it looks like (bit representation)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, it might be the case. In the latest version I added some example bit selectors after the written explanation. Can you see if they make sense to you?

* 1: version (`TXFS_VERSION`)
* 2: locktime (`TXFS_LOCKTIME`)
* 3: current input index (`TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_IDX`)
* 4: current input control block (or empty) (`TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_CONTROL_BLOCK`)
* 5: current input spent script (i.e. witness script or tapscript) (`TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_SPENTSCRIPT`)
* 6: current script last `OP_CODESEPARATOR` position (or 0xffffffff)
(`TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_LAST_CODESEPARATOR_POS`)
* 7: (unused)
* 8: `TXFS_CONTROL` (i.e. include TxFieldSelector into hash)

* The highest bit of the first byte (`TXFS_CONTROL`), we will call the
"control bit", and it can be used to control the behavior of the opcode. For
`OP_TXHASH` and `OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY`, the control bit is used to determine
whether the TxFieldSelector itself has to be included in the resulting hash.
(For potential other uses of the TxFieldSelector (like a hypothetical
`OP_TX`), this bit can be repurposed.)

* The second byte will be used to indicate fields from the inputs and outputs.
If there is only a single byte present, no information from the inputs and
outputs will be committed. Otherwise, of the second byte, the 8 bits are
assigned the following variables, from lowest to highest:
* Specifying which fields of the inputs will be selected:
* 1: prevouts (`TXFS_INPUTS_PREVOUTS`)
* 2: sequences (`TXFS_INPUTS_SEQUENCES`)
* 3: scriptSigs (`TXFS_INPUTS_SCRIPTSIGS`)
* 4: prevout scriptPubkeys (`TXFS_INPUTS_PREV_SCRIPTPUBKEYS`)
* 5: prevout values (`TXFS_INPUTS_PREV_VALUED`)
* 6: taproot annexes (`TXFS_INPUTS_TAPROOT_ANNEXES`)

* Specifying which fields of the outputs will be selected:
* 7: scriptPubkeys (`TXFS_OUTPUTS_SCRIPTPUBKEYS`)
* 8: values (`TXFS_OUTPUTS_VALUES`)

* We define as follows:
* `TXFS_ALL = TXFS_VERSION | TXFS_LOCKTIME | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_IDX | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_CONTROL_BLOCK | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_LAST_CODESEPARATOR_POS | TXFS_INPUTS | TXFS_OUTPUTS | TXFS_CONTROL`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is a typo?

Suggested change
* `TXFS_ALL = TXFS_VERSION | TXFS_LOCKTIME | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_IDX | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_CONTROL_BLOCK | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_LAST_CODESEPARATOR_POS | TXFS_INPUTS | TXFS_OUTPUTS | TXFS_CONTROL`
* `TXFS_ALL = TXFS_VERSION | TXFS_LOCKTIME | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_IDX | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_CONTROL_BLOCK | TXFS_CURRENT_INPUT_LAST_CODESEPARATOR_POS | TXFS_INPUTS_ALL | TXFS_OUTPUTS_ALL | TXFS_CONTROL`

* `TXFS_INPUTS_ALL = TXFS_INPUTS_PREVOUTS | TXFS_INPUTS_SEQUENCES | TXFS_INPUTS_SCRIPTSIGS | TXFS_INPUTS_PREV_SCRIPTPUBKEYS | TXFS_INPUTS_PREV_VALUES | TXFS_INPUTS_TAPROOT_ANNEXES`
* `TXFS_INPUTS_TEMPLATE = TXFS_INPUTS_SEQUENCES | TXFS_INPUTS_SCRIPTSIGS | TXFS_INPUTS_PREV_VALUES | TXFS_INPUTS_TAPROOT_ANNEXES`
* `TXFS_OUTPUTS_ALL = TXFS_OUTPUTS_SCRIPTPUBKEYS | TXFS_OUTPUTS_VALUES`


* For both inputs and then outputs, expect an additional byte as follows:
* The highest bit (`TXFS_INOUT_NUMBER`) indicates whether the "number of
in-/outputs" should be committed to.
* For the remaining bits, there are three exceptional values:
stevenroose marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* 0x00 (`TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_NONE`) means "no in/outputs" (hence only the
number of them as `0x80` (`TXFS_INOUT_NUMBER`)).
* `0x40` (`TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_CURRENT`) means "select only the in/output
of the current input index" (it is invalid when current index exceeds
number of outputs).
* `0x3f` (`TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_ALL`) means "select all in/outputs".

* The second highest bit (`TXFS_INOUT_SELECTION_MODE`) is the "specification mode":
* Set to 0 it means "leading mode".
* Set to 1 it means "individual mode".

* In "leading mode", the third highest bit (`TXFS_INOUT_LEADING_SIZE`) is
used to indicate the "index size", i.e. the number of bytes will be used to
represent the number of in/output.
* With "index size" set to 0, the remaining lowest 5 bits of the first byte
will be interpreted as the number of leading in/outputs to select.
* With "index size" set to 1, the remaining lowest 5 bits of the first byte
together with the 8 bits of the next byte will be interpreted as the
number of leading in/outputs to select.

* In "individual mode", the third highest bit (`TXFS_INOUT_INDIVIDUAL_MODE`)
indicates whether we are passing absolute indices (0) or indices relative
to the current input (1), the remaining lowest 5 bits will be interpreted
as `n`, the number of individual in/outputs follow.
* In absolute mode (second highest bit is 0), for each of the `n` indices,
at least one extra byte is expected.
* If that byte's highest bit is set to 0, the remaining 7 bits represent
the absolute index to select.
* If that byte's highest bit is set to 1, the remaining 7 bits, together
with the next byte's 8 bits represent the absolute index to select.
* In relative mode (second highest bit is 1), for each of the `n` indices,
at least one extra byte is expected.
* If that byte's highest bit is set to 0, the remaining 7 bits represent
the relative index in two's complement.
* If that byte's highest bit is set to 1, the remaining 7 bits, together
with the next byte's 8 bits represent the relative index in two's
complement.


Effectively, this allows a user to select
* all in/outputs
* the current input index
* the leading in/outputs up to 7936
* up to 32 individually selected in/outputs
** using absolute indices up to 16384
** using indices relative to the current input index from -8191 to +8192.

### TxFieldSelector malleability

It is possible to represent the same selected data using multiple different
TxFieldSelectors. For this reason, users are strongly advised to always set the
`TXFS_CONTROL` that commits to the TxFieldSelector that was used to get the
hash.



### Visualization

* first byte

```
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
| | | | | | | ^ version
| | | | | | ^ locktime
| | | | | ^ current input index
| | | | ^ current input control block
| | | ^ current input spend script
| | ^ current script last OP_CODESEPARATOR
| ^ currently unused
^ control bit (ie. include TXFS in hash)
```

* second byte

```
v outputs
<-> <---------> inputs
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
| | | | | | | ^ prevouts
| | | | | | ^ sequences
| | | | | ^ scriptSigs
| | | | ^ prevout scriptPubkeys
| | | ^ prevout values
| | ^ taproot annexes
| ^ scriptPubkeys
^ values
Comment on lines +203 to +213
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The "v" threw me off so I'm offering a suggestion that may help readability.

Suggested change
v outputs
<-> <---------> inputs
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
| | | | | | | ^ prevouts
| | | | | | ^ sequences
| | | | | ^ scriptSigs
| | | | ^ prevout scriptPubkeys
| | | ^ prevout values
| | ^ taproot annexes
| ^ scriptPubkeys
^ values
<-> outputs
| | <---------> inputs
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
| | | | | | | ^ prevouts
| | | | | | ^ sequences
| | | | | ^ scriptSigs
| | | | ^ prevout scriptPubkeys
| | | ^ prevout values
| | ^ taproot annexes
| ^ scriptPubkeys
^ values

```

* in/output selector byte

"only the first 3"
```
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
| | | <-------> integer 0b00011 == 3
| | ^ index size 0: single byte
| ^ leading mode
^ commit the number of in/outputs
```

"only the first 257"
```
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
| | | <------------------------> integer 0b00001 00000001 == 257
| | ^ index size 1: two bytes
| ^ leading mode
^ commit the number of in/outputs
```

"only indices 0 and 2"
```
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
| | | | <--------------> second idx: 3
| | | | <--------------> first idx: 1
| | | | <-----> selection count: 0b10 == 2
| | | ^ index size 0: single byte per index
| | ^ absolute index
| ^ individual mode
^ don't commit the number of in/outputs
Comment on lines +238 to +245
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
| | | | <--------------> second idx: 3
| | | | <--------------> first idx: 1
| | | | <-----> selection count: 0b10 == 2
| | | ^ index size 0: single byte per index
| | ^ absolute index
| ^ individual mode
^ don't commit the number of in/outputs
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
| | | | <-------------> second idx: 3
| | | | <-------------> first idx: 1
| | | | <-----> selection count: 0b10 == 2
| | | ^ index size 0: single byte per index
| | ^ absolute index
| ^ individual mode
^ don't commit the number of in/outputs

```

* total example

```
bf ff c2 01 03 83
| | ^ commit number of outputs + leading 3 outputs
| | <------> commit number of inputs + inputs at indices 1 and 3
| ^ all input and output fields
^ all regular fields, except for the unused one
```


## Resource limits

* For legacy scripts and segwit, we don't add any extra resource limitations,
with the argumentation that `OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY` already requires the user
to provide at least 32 bytes of extra transaction size, either in the input
scriptSig, or the witness. Additional more complex hashes require additional
witness bytes. Given that `OP_CAT` is not available in this context, if a
malicious user tries to increase the number of TransactionHashes being
calculated by using opcodes like `OP_DUP`, the TxFieldSelector for all these
calculations is identical, so the calculation can be cached within the same
transaction.

* For tapscript, primarily motivated by the cheaper opcode `OP_TXHASH` (it
doesn't require an additional 32 witness bytes be provided) and the potential
future addition of byte manipulation opcodes like `OP_CAT`, an additional
cost is specified per TransactionHash execution. Using the same validation
budget ("sigops budget") introduced in BIP-0342, each TransactionHash
decreases the validation budget by 25. If this brings the budget below zero,
the script fails immediately.<br>The following considerations should be made:
* All fields that can be of arbitrary size are cachable as TransactionHash
always hashes their hashed values.
* In "individual mode", a user can at most commit 32 inputs or outputs,
which we don't consider excessive for potential repeated use.
* In "leading mode", a caching strategy can be used where the SHA256 context
is stored every N in/outputs so that multiple executions of the
TransactionHash function can use the caches and only have to hash an
additional N-1 items at most.


# Motivation

This BIP specifies a basic transaction introspection primitive that is useful
to either reduce interactivity in multi-user protocols or to enforce some basic
constraints on transactions.

Additionally, the constructions specified in this BIP can lay the groundwork for
some potential future upgrades:
* The TxFieldSelector construction would work well with a hypothetical opcode
`OP_TX` that allows for directly introspecting the transaction by putting the
fields selected on the stack instead of hashing them together.
* The TransactionHash obtained by `OP_TXHASH` can be combined with a
hypothetical opcode `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK` to effectively create an
incredibly flexible signature hash, which would enable constructions like
`SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`.

## Comparing with some alternative proposals

* This proposal strictly generalizes BIP-119's `OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY`, as the
default mode of our TxFieldSelector is effectively the same (though not
byte-for-byte identical) as what `OP_CTV` acomplishes, without costing any
additional bytes. Additionally, using `OP_CHECKTXHASHVERIFY` allows for more
flexibility which can help in the case for
* enabling adding fees to a transaction without breaking a multi-tx protocol;
* multi-user protocols where users are only concerned about their own inputs and outputs.

* Constructions like `OP_IN_OUT_VALUE` used with `OP_EQUALVERIFY` can be
emulated by two `OP_TXHASH` instances by using the TxFieldSelector to select
a single input value first and a single output value second and enforcing
equality on the hashes. Neither of these alternatives can be used to enforce
small value differencials without the availability of 64-bit arithmetic in
Script.

* Like mentioned above, `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT` can be emulated using `OP_TXHASH`
when combined with `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`:
`<txfs> OP_TXHASH <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK` effectively emulates `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`.


# Detailed Specification

A reference implementation in Rust is provided attached as part of this BIP
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I would really appreciate a table of all the bits and exactly what and how they encode them. It's particularly nasty because some values are little-endian 32 bit encoded, not CScriptNum encoded, and others are varint encoded?

But it's nice to be explicit in each case, for people like me who are not deep in the weeds of bitcoin's onchain representation, since it helps when considering how to use this alongside things like OP_CAT and extended arithmetic opcodes.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@stevenroose stevenroose Jan 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I agree. I think I tried to encode values the way they are consistently encoded in other contexts like sighashes and p2p. But I will go over them and list them in the BIP as well. It's true that I didn't consider the interactions between regular LE encoding and CScriptNum encoding which is what will be used when math is done in Script for things like values.

together with a JSON file of test vectors generated using the reference
implementation.


# Implementation

* A proposed implementation for Bitcoin Core is available here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29050
* A proposed implementation for rust-bitcoin is available here:
https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/2275

Both of the above implementations perform effective caching to avoid potential
denial-of-service attack vectors.


# Acknowledgement

Credit for this proposal mostly goes to Jeremy Rubin for his work on BIP-119's
`OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY` and to Russell O'Connor for the original idea of
generalizing `OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY` into `OP_TXHASH`.

Additional thanks to Andrew Poelstra, Greg Sanders, Rearden Code, Rusty Russell
and others for their feedback on the specification.

13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions bip-txhash/ref-impl/Cargo.toml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
[package]
name = "txhash-ref"
version = "0.0.0"
edition = "2021"

[dependencies]
bitcoin = { version = "=0.31.0", features = [ "serde" ] }
serde_json = "1.0.108"

# until bitcoin-io is released and https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/2274 is merged
[patch.crates-io]
bitcoin = { git = "https://github.com/stevenroose/rust-bitcoin.git", branch = "txhash", features = [ "serde" ] }
bitcoin_hashes = { git = "https://github.com/stevenroose/rust-bitcoin.git", branch = "txhash" }
Loading
Loading