4 ms·

I wonder if this is something a hardware wallet provider could solve on their end in the software. Like one signature is a go for subsequent needed signatures

I wonder if this is something a hardware wallet provider could solve on their end in the software. Like one signature is a go for subsequent needed signatures as long as nothing changes with the transaction or something like that.

RL_Quine 6y ago
Possibly, it still has the expectation that all parties are online to some degree which isn't something we have in Bitcoin today, where signatures can be added even years after the fact when needed. None of this is killer or a reason to not use Schnorr, it's just not quite as much of a magic bullet as people originally expected. To my knowledge this wasn't a very well known property until anybody had implemented it for bitcoin, I doubt it was ever used once it was patented.
- trident1000 6y ago
  "where signatures can be added even years after the fact when needed" Why would you need this to be the case? In my mind (im not an expert) I just imagine schnorrs batching signatures into one tx on the chain. And then its done. Why would you need to add years after?
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    Signature aggregation would be only on a transaction level, not on a block level as you require interaction between all signing parties, and any party can block the signature. You would also have to have some system of making a block, then everybody re-signing their transactions to make the block aggregated- it's just not happening. In Bitcoin today we can do things like make a conditional signature in a multi signature. With three parties, one can pre-sign a transaction and lock it until a future date, then hand it to the other parties who can sign it at their leisure when that time is elapsed. This would not be possible with schnorr unless you also had the expectation that all parties would be online when the lock time expires.
    - nullc 6y ago
      Your comments are unintentionally misleading people, see vmception's comments above. Yes, to get the space/validation improvements you can get from schnorr you need interaction. But it's perfectly possible to use it in the same way as ECDSA, it only adds options, it doesn't remove them. For some applications the requiremetn that the participants isn't a big deal and they can enjoy those benefits, otherwise they don't.
- vmception 6y ago
  It is sad that bitcoin's solutions have a liveness expectation, whereas other chains have a lot of competing solutions where only some of those solutions have a liveness expectation It is like watching a state-capital system versus a free-er market compete. People in the state-capital system have completely binary things to argue about, with dissidents being shunned while everyone is stuck in a quagmire of false dilemmas. Third and fourth and additional options are not considered. Whereas in the free-er market, people are allowed to take risks and fail, fail with LOTS of money and value, and iterate en masse towards solutions that are most "useful" ideally, but also service a variety of use cases.

RL_Quine 6y ago

Possibly, it still has the expectation that all parties are online to some degree which isn't something we have in Bitcoin today, where signatures can be added even years after the fact when needed. None of this is killer or a reason to not use Schnorr, it's just not quite as much of a magic bullet as people originally expected. To my knowledge this wasn't a very well known property until anybody had implemented it for bitcoin, I doubt it was ever used once it was patented.

trident1000 6y ago
"where signatures can be added even years after the fact when needed" Why would you need this to be the case? In my mind (im not an expert) I just imagine schnorrs batching signatures into one tx on the chain. And then its done. Why would you need to add years after?
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  Signature aggregation would be only on a transaction level, not on a block level as you require interaction between all signing parties, and any party can block the signature. You would also have to have some system of making a block, then everybody re-signing their transactions to make the block aggregated- it's just not happening. In Bitcoin today we can do things like make a conditional signature in a multi signature. With three parties, one can pre-sign a transaction and lock it until a future date, then hand it to the other parties who can sign it at their leisure when that time is elapsed. This would not be possible with schnorr unless you also had the expectation that all parties would be online when the lock time expires.
  - nullc 6y ago
    Your comments are unintentionally misleading people, see vmception's comments above. Yes, to get the space/validation improvements you can get from schnorr you need interaction. But it's perfectly possible to use it in the same way as ECDSA, it only adds options, it doesn't remove them. For some applications the requiremetn that the participants isn't a big deal and they can enjoy those benefits, otherwise they don't.
vmception 6y ago
It is sad that bitcoin's solutions have a liveness expectation, whereas other chains have a lot of competing solutions where only some of those solutions have a liveness expectation It is like watching a state-capital system versus a free-er market compete. People in the state-capital system have completely binary things to argue about, with dissidents being shunned while everyone is stuck in a quagmire of false dilemmas. Third and fourth and additional options are not considered. Whereas in the free-er market, people are allowed to take risks and fail, fail with LOTS of money and value, and iterate en masse towards solutions that are most "useful" ideally, but also service a variety of use cases.