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

Newsletters: add 62 (2019-09-04) #219

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 4, 2019

Conversation

@harding
Copy link
Contributor

harding commented Aug 31, 2019

Based on #218, ignore first commit
#218 has been merged

@jnewbery jnewbery force-pushed the harding:2019-09-04-newsletter branch from 9aa2e30 to f91f3d9 Sep 3, 2019
@jnewbery

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jnewbery commented Sep 3, 2019

I merged #218 and rebased this on master.

Copy link
Contributor

jnewbery left a comment

Looks great. Thanks @harding . Three small comments inline.

to be disclosed at the end of this month affect older LN
implementations. If you are using any of the following software
versions, upgrading to a more recent version is [strongly
recommended:][cve ln]

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

super nit: anchor around strongly recommended, not strongly recommended:

[cve ln]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-August/002130.html
[bolts608]: /en/newsletters/2019/08/28/#bolts-608
[bolts]: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/
[snicker]: https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/2c13fb5819bd469ca318156e2cf25d79#storage-of-keys

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

Why is this linking to the #storage-of-keys id?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Sep 3, 2019

Author Contributor

This was a mistake (I grabbed that link for a separate discussion about that aspect of the proposal and then reused it here without thinking about it). Thanks to you and @jonatack for catching this, I'll fix it.


## News

- **SNICKER proposed:** Adam Gibson posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

I suggest we link to the mailing list post (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-September/017283.html) as well as the draft BIP.

I also think we could link to Adam's blog post (https://joinmarket.me/blog/blog/snicker/)

as described in [last week's newsletter][bolts608].

- [Eclair #899][] implements extended queries as proposed in [BOLTs
#557][], allowing an LN node to only request gossip updates that

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@adamjonas

adamjonas Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

nit: to only request -> only to request (split infinitive)

Copy link

jonatack left a comment

Interesting newsletter as always and great to see Adam Gibson's proposal discussed! A few comments below.

---
This week's newsletter relays a security announcement for LN
implementations, describes a non-interactive coinjoin proposal, and
notes a few changes in popular Bitcoin Infrastructure projects.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

suggestion: lowercase "infrastructure"

lang: en
---
This week's newsletter relays a security announcement for LN
implementations, describes a non-interactive coinjoin proposal, and

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

proposed to Adam to drop by and have a look-see

also be able to derive from Alice's public key. With the shared
secret and Bob's public key, Alice is able to create a new public key
that only Bob can sign for. That new public key is used to create the
new address for Bob's coinjoin output. Nobody besides Alice and Bob

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

suggestion: s/Nobody/No one/

both possibilities.-->{% endcomment %}

With information about the inputs and the outputs, Alice creates a
[BIP174][] Partially-Signed Bitcoin Transaction (PSBT) containing the

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

Each time I read "Partially-Signed..." it strikes me as a (minor, perhaps pedantic) grammar error. "Partially" can only be an adverb. IIUC, dashes are only appended to adverbs when they can also be adjectives (or other), to clarify when they play the part of an adverb and modify the word they precede.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Sep 3, 2019

Author Contributor

I'm going to leave this as-is since I have a busy todo list today and we've used this construction many times before, but tomorrow I'll look into this in more detail and will either get back to you with an explanation or will open a PR to remove the hyphen across the repository. (Omitting the hyphen feels wrong to me and I have a vague recollection of a rule requiring (or at least suggesting) it, but I need to research it.)

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

Hyphens, thank you. As a recovering liberal hyphenizer before coming across the rule I mentioned, I'm interested in your conclusion. Could imagine a possible exception to the rule for titles or proper nouns.

- **SNICKER proposed:** Adam Gibson posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing
list with a [proposal][snicker] for *Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin
with Keys for Encryption Reused* (SNICKER), a two-step method for
allowing wallets to create coinjoins non-interactively. In the first

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

suggestion: name the two steps (proposal/reception) before launching into the detail about each one

This completes the proposer step in SNICKER.

If Bob participates in the scheme, his wallet can begin the second
step (*receiver* step) by periodically checking the server to see if

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

perhaps: s/receiver step/reception/

SNICKER exchange server.

The main downside of the proposal is that it requires the proposer
(Alice) know the public key of the receiver (Bob). Almost all

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

suggestion: s/know/to know/

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

alternatively, s/requires the/requires that the/

The main downside of the proposal is that it requires the proposer
(Alice) know the public key of the receiver (Bob). Almost all
transactions today pay an address that doesn't include a public key,
although that may to change if the proposed [taproot][bip-taproot]

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

s/may to change/may change/

transactions today pay an address that doesn't include a public key,
although that may to change if the proposed [taproot][bip-taproot]
soft fork is activated and becomes widely adopted. In the meantime,
the SNICKER proposal suggests using reused addresses where public keys

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

suggestion: s/using reusing addresses where/reusing addresses whose/

[cve ln]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-August/002130.html
[bolts608]: /en/newsletters/2019/08/28/#bolts-608
[bolts]: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/
[snicker]: https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/2c13fb5819bd469ca318156e2cf25d79#storage-of-keys

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

Is the #storage-of-keys part of this URL desired? IIUC the link is used in the intro sentence "Adam Gibson posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list with a [proposal][snicker] for Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin with Keys for Encryption Reused"...

@AdamISZ

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

AdamISZ commented Sep 3, 2019

Had a quick read through, it's a very good concise summary of the main idea, better than either that of mine, probably.

"map of addresses and public keys" - I think using the term 'map' here is a bit suboptimal in terms of understanding for the reader. Maybe better something like 'scans the blockchain to make lists of candidate public keys, either from reused addresses or from inferring connections between inputs an outputs, or perhaps via some watermarking in transactions'. Or ... a shorter version of that, if you prefer :)

I agree with your de-emphasis of encryption here ('perhaps encrypted') given our earlier conversation. Perhaps 'perhaps' is too faint though :) But no worries, that's fine.

But one last point - I do think the use of anonymous network connections to the server should probably be mentioned. Just because it serves to further emphasize that the "bulletin board" server is just that; identities or accounts are not involved, at least not within the proposal as-is.

Thanks for writing this @harding and thanks for the ping @jonatack !

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Sep 3, 2019

Pushed edits for feedback. Thanks everyone for the reviews!

If Bob participates in the scheme, his wallet can begin the second
step (*receiver* step) by periodically checking the server to see if
If Bob participates in the scheme, his wallet can begin the
receiver by periodically checking the server to see if

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

s/receiver/receiver step/ ?

This completes the proposer step in SNICKER.

If Bob participates in the scheme, his wallet can begin the
receiver by periodically checking the server to see if

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

s/begin the receiver/begin the receiver step/

people via a variety of servers, selecting whichever proposal he
prefers (or none at all). Either party can also spend their UTXO
normally at any time, automatically invalidating any pending proposals
without any harm done. The PSBTs can be exchanged using any medium that doesn't require users identify themselves,

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

s/doesn't require users identify/doesn't require users to identify/


The main downside of the proposal is that it requires the proposer
(Alice) know the public key of the receiver (Bob). Almost all
transactions today pay an address that doesn't include a public key,

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Sep 3, 2019

Contributor

perhaps: almost all transactions outputs today pay to an address

SNICKER exchange server.

The main downside of the proposal is that it requires the proposer
(Alice) know the public key of the receiver (Bob). Almost all
transactions today pay an address that doesn't include a public key,
although that may to change if the proposed [taproot][bip-taproot]
although that may change if the proposed [taproot][bip-taproot]
soft fork is activated and becomes widely adopted. In the meantime,

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonatack

jonatack Sep 3, 2019

note that here ("widely adopted") you did not use a hyphen 👼

@jonatack

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jonatack commented Sep 3, 2019

Verified the new links are 🆗

@jonatack

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jonatack commented Sep 3, 2019

in b4 @bitschmidty

Takes a few steps to make a snicker newsletter
Big Dave wrote up the rhymes then he dropped the hammer
MC Adam G did B-I-P author review
Give it up for John-Jonas-Jon,Triple-J Review Crew
PSBTs be rockin with Alice & Bob
Pass the mic to MC Mike to finish the job

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Sep 4, 2019

Pushed edits for @jonatack and @jnewbery second-round feedback. Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

bitschmidty left a comment

tACK 17aa336

@bitschmidty bitschmidty force-pushed the harding:2019-09-04-newsletter branch from 17aa336 to 016c3cc Sep 4, 2019
@bitschmidty bitschmidty merged commit 58bc106 into bitcoinops:master Sep 4, 2019
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
netlify/bitcoinops/deploy-preview Deploy preview ready!
Details
@bitschmidty

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bitschmidty commented Sep 4, 2019

my little ditty comments are getting redundant
much better rhymes becoming abundant

Adam Gibson on the mail list has spoken
'You're not you when you're hidden' is the new SNICKER slogan

rebased, squashed and merged! thanks @harding and reviewers!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.