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 83 (2020-02-05) #334

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 5, 2020

Conversation

harding
Copy link
Contributor

@harding harding commented Feb 3, 2020

No description provided.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Feb 3, 2020

Pushed a small edit on the 16702 write-up (partially based on feedback from moneyball)

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery left a comment

I don't have time to do a detailed review this week, but I've left some very high-level feedback on the Proposed amendments to BIP340 schnorr signatures item. All the rest looks good from a quick skim.

_posts/en/newsletters/2020-02-05-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@moneyball
Copy link
Contributor

@moneyball moneyball commented Feb 3, 2020

I read the newsletter but didn't scrutinize it closely. LGTM!

@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Feb 4, 2020

ACK 084b2a2

Copy link
Member

@adamjonas adamjonas left a comment

Few suggestions before we go to press. Sorry, I'm late to review.

ACK after that.

_posts/en/newsletters/2020-02-05-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-02-05-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-02-05-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-02-05-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bitschmidty bitschmidty merged commit 1e8beca into bitcoinops:master Feb 5, 2020
2 checks passed
@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Feb 5, 2020

Added a commit for @adamjonas feedback, thanks for those catches.

Squashed and merged.

@jonatack
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack commented Feb 5, 2020

Oh! This was merged earlier than usual. Sorry, I've been caught up reviewing for today's review club session I'm hosting. Will still have a look.

However, there remains a risk that inexperienced developers will not
perform this step, and so it seems preferable to use Jonas Nick's
suggestion (relayed by Maxwell) of including the public key in the
data used to produce a deterministic nonce.
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Feb 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just now on #secp256k1 irc:

08:05 <gmaxwell> https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/02/05/ is kinda odd
08:06 <gmaxwell> anyone ever find any implementation that verifies after in open source code in the wild?
08:06 <gmaxwell> I think it's strange to say " However, there remains a risk that inexperienced developers will not perform this step" regarding a pretty computationally expensive step that I don't ever recall seeing any implementation take.
08:08 <sipa> gmaxwell: agree
08:10 <sipa> harding: ping ^... perhaps it's better to say something like "However, the computational overhead of this approach may not be acceptable to many applications" or so

Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Feb 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

08:17 <gmaxwell> (I think probably _we_ should do this in libsecp, optionally annd have it controllable with a context flag...because our signing is usually used in cases where performance doesn't matter)
08:33 <gmaxwell> I guess in bitcoin-core it kind of accidentally verifies after since it puts stuff in the mempool before relaying.
08:33 <gmaxwell> I think you could extract from the wallet via getraw a txn with a failing signature however.
08:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: no, even before that
08:41 <sipa> the script signing logic invokes validation
08:41 <sipa> to determine whether it's done signing
08:42 <sipa> though i'm not sure that failure at that level would e.g. not result in the invalid signature ending up in a PSBT or so

Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack left a comment

ACK, LGTM.

Humble possible suggestion for notable changes next week: bitcoin/bitcoin#17585 affects RPC API users by deprecating the getwalletinfo label field, which has been superceded by labels.

@jnewbery jnewbery added the newsletters label Feb 13, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
newsletters
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants