diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-schnorr.mediawiki | 6 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/bip-schnorr.mediawiki b/bip-schnorr.mediawiki index 61414f5..31a5904 100644 --- a/bip-schnorr.mediawiki +++ b/bip-schnorr.mediawiki @@ -56,7 +56,11 @@ encodings and operations. We choose the ''R''-option to support batch verification. -'''Key prefixing''' When using the verification rule above directly, it is possible for a third party to convert a signature ''(R, s)'' for key ''P'' into a signature ''(R, s + a⋅hash(R || m))'' for key ''P + a⋅G'' and the same message, for any integer ''a''. To combat this, we choose ''key prefixed''<ref>A limitation of committing to the public key (rather than to a short hash of it, or not at all) is that it removes the ability for public key recovery or verifying signatures against a short public key hash. These constructions are generally incompatible with batch verification.</ref> Schnorr signatures; changing the equation to ''s⋅G = R + hash(R || P || m)⋅P''. Key prefixing also seems to be a requirement for the security proof of the MuSig multisignature scheme (see Applications below). It is not strictly necessary to do this explicitly for Bitcoin currently, as all signature hashes indirectly commit to the public keys already. However, this may change with proposals such as SIGHASH_NOINPUT ([https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki BIP 118]), or when the signature scheme is used for other purposes—especially in combination with schemes like [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki BIP32]'s unhardened derivation. +'''Key prefixing''' Using the verification rule above directly makes Schnorr signatures vulnerable to "related-key attacks" in which a third party can convert a signature ''(R, s)'' for public key ''P'' into a signature ''(R, s + a⋅hash(R || m))'' for public key ''P + a⋅G'' and the same message ''m'', for any given additive tweak ''a'' to the signing key. This would render signatures insecure when keys are generated using [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki#public-parent-key--public-child-key BIP32's unhardened derivation] and other methods that rely on additive tweaks to existing keys such as Taproot. + +To protect against these attacks, we choose ''key prefixed''<ref>A limitation of committing to the public key (rather than to a short hash of it, or not at all) is that it removes the ability for public key recovery or verifying signatures against a short public key hash. These constructions are generally incompatible with batch verification.</ref> Schnorr signatures; changing the equation to ''s⋅G = R + hash(R || P || m)⋅P''. [https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1135.pdf It can be shown] that key prefixing protects against related-key attacks with additive tweaks. In general, key prefixing increases robustness in multi-user settings, e.g., it seems to be a requirement for proving the MuSig multisignature scheme secure (see Applications below). + +We note that key prefixing is not strictly necessary for transaction signatures as used in Bitcoin currently, because signed transactions indirectly commit to the public keys already, i.e., ''m'' contains a commitment to ''pk''. However, this indirect commitment should not relied upon because it may change with proposals such as SIGHASH_NOINPUT ([https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki BIP118]), and would render the signature scheme unsuitable for other purposes than signing transactions, e.g., [https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#signmessage signing ordinary messages]. '''Encoding R and public key point P''' There exist several possibilities for encoding elliptic curve points: # Encoding the full X and Y coordinates of ''P'' and ''R'', resulting in a 64-byte public key and a 96-byte signature. |