SimulSig
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
- Issue type
- Feature
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Activity status
- Stale
- Domain
- blockchain, cryptography, distributed-systems
Research direction
No files, tests, or implementation entry points are named. Start by reading the Background and Construction sections, then review the discussion about utility, scaling, signer trade-offs, and malleability; done would require agreement on the SimulSig design and its protocol implications.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
I'm opening this issue to discuss a new signature type which makes it easier to construct complex protocols on Stellar. I'd love for the discussion to focus on the: utility of this feature, the scaling trade offs, and good trade-offs for multiple signers signing the same tree of transactions.
Background
In a State Channel with N participants, upgrading the channel state requires O(N^2) signature operations/interactions (N+1 signatures per participant) and two phases (Snapshot signing and Claim signing).
If it were possible to simultaneously sign all of the transactions in a round, it would be possible to reduce the number of protocol phases to one and the number of signatures to O(N).
To address this, I introduce a new primitive for simultaneous signature creation. Simulsig is generally useful for any protocol with many participants and many phases. SimulSig makes signatures sizes dependent on the number of SimulSigned transaction, O(log2(T)).
Construction
Rather than signing m=H(TransactionEnvelope), a signer signs m=MerkleTree([TransactionEnvelope]). To sign a specific Transaction Envelope, a signer includes the Merkle Path and the top level signature. Each signer can specify to verify against either the tx hash, their own provided SimulSig, or just against the last one provided (TODO: Malleability considerations?).
Discussion
For our intended use case, the merkle tree proof is amortized -- there are N signers, so a single log(N) merkle proof is negligible. However there are use cases where one might authorize a very large number of transactions (say 2^n) where the lookup proof would be substantially larger. In this case, protocols should add code to support 'existential spend path fee reduction' (if someone demonstrates a transaction they intend to broadcast with a SimulSig from you requiring a large lookup, you cooperatively provide a regular signature of that transaction).
- Dominant language
- RPC
- Stars
- 632
- Forks
- 399
- Avg merge
- 1d 23h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 6
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from stellar/stellar-protocol
-
Difficulty 1/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
stellar/stellar-protocol#2010 ·
-
stale
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 42/100
stellar/stellar-protocol#1928 · 6 comments ·
-
needs draft SEP
stellar/stellar-protocol#773 · 12 comments · 1 assignee ·
-
CAP help wanted needs draft
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
stellar/stellar-protocol#324 · 11 comments ·
-
help wanted needs draft SEP
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 25/100
stellar/stellar-protocol#316 · 4 comments ·
All issues in stellar/stellar-protocol
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
blinklabs-io/bursa#904 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#6908 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
Merit-Systems/x402scan#1215 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 74/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
Uniswap/default-token-list#2585 ·