Cross Input Signature Aggregation
Date: April 8, 2024
Transcript By:
Tags: Bitcoin core, Cisa
Category: Core dev tech
- cisaresearch.org, put together by fjahr
- Documents progress of half and full agg (theory, implementation and deployment)
- Provides collection of CISA-related resources (ML posts, papers, videos/podcasts, etc.) Should provide guidance for further development/open todos for contributors to grab
- HRF announces CISA Research Fellowship
- Seeks to answer questions how CISA will affect privacy, cost-savings, and much more during a four-month period for a total of .5BTC
- More: https://nostr.com/note1h4fdw5ttqmjwf3eqr0s5lqzjhdvwcayl0hrfnv726cw4eeag6phs9xszpw Will coordinate with them to align cisaresearch.org with their initiative to prevent duplicate work
- Recap half vs. full agg
- Half agg
- Proven secure
- No cost savings in terms of verification, batch verification necessary (draft PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491)
- tx level
- keep only r of original (r,s) signature in half-agged sig
- aggregate s values
- signature size reduced from n_input64B to n_input32B + 32B (aggregated s)
- block level
- aggregate s of all txs
- can be stored in block’s coinbase witness
- Full agg
- Security proof outstanding
- Protocol under development
- Requires interactivity
- Can you merge interactivity of full agg into coinjoin?
- Probably (might involve more rounds though)
- Tadge’s remarks on interactivity from Tabconf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI15RKnyX_E)
- Cost of interactivity has been mispriced
- Should get rid of interactivity when possible
- Can you merge interactivity of full agg into coinjoin?
- signature size reduced from n_input*64B to 64B
- Half agg
- Update from Tim/Nick
- Full agg: no real updates since BTC Azores
- Half agg
- Minor changes since BTC Azores
- Three implementations available C, Python, hacspec/Rust
- No concrete proposals to use it
- Potential BIP for half agg deployment
- No reasons not to work on it
- If you look at coinjoin, full agg would be best but half agg could save block space now and coinjoin’s are just one part of the ecosystem
- Should apply half agg at the block level, as more savings
- Who is aggregating? Users or miners?
- Can miner aggregation be a problem for users? For what transactions don’t we want
aggregation?
- Adaptor signatures
- Hypothesis: Can still use adaptor signature for script path (only aggregate key path spends, not script path spends)
- Can miner aggregation be a problem for users? For what transactions don’t we want
aggregation?
- Does half agg require consensus change?
- Yes, needs new SegWit version
- CISA improvement maybe too small to justify soft fork, so maybe package it with
“next cool thing”
- expected (maximum) weight improvement: 7.6% (15.2%)
- expected (maximum) size improvement: 20.6% (41.2%)
- details: https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/cross-input-aggregation/blob/master/savings.org
- Issue: block reorg
- Cannot insert tx of reorged block into mempool, as s values are missing
- Potential workaround: Include s values with (not in) block
- s values required to accept block
- s values stored until block buried deep enough so reorg is no concern
- pro: faster IDB, can fit more data in block, con: blocks effectively >1MB (to xfer)
- Issue: lowers dust threshold
- Makes it slightly cheaper to sweep dust
- Won’t work for existing dust outputs
- No reasons not to work on it