Quantum Proofing Bitcoin with a CAT
no cats harmed in the making of this postTweet
I recently published a blog post about signing up to a 5 byte value using Bitcoin script arithmetic and Lamport signatures.
By itself, this is neat, but a little limited. What if we could sign longer messages? If we can sign up to 20 bytes, we could sign a HASH160 digest which is most likely quantum safe…
What would it mean if we signed the HASH160 digest of a signature? What the what? Why would we do that?
Well, as it turns out, even if a quantum computer were able to crack ECDSA, it would yield revealing the private key but not the ability to malleate the content of what was actually signed. I asked my good friend and cryptographer Madars Virza if my intuition was correct, and he confirmed that it should be sufficient, but it’s definitely worth closer analysis before relying on this. While the ECDSA signature can be malleated to a different, negative form, if the signature is otherwise made immalleable there should only be one value the commitment can be opened to.
If we required the ECDSA signature be signed with a quantum proof signature algorithm, then we’d have a quantum proof Bitcoin! And the 5 byte signing scheme we discussed previously is a Lamport signature, which is quantum secure. Unfortunately, we need at least 20 contiguous bytes… so we need some sort of OP_CAT like operation.
OP_CAT can’t be directly soft forked to Segwit v0 because it modifies the stack, so instead we’ll (for simplicity) also show how to use a new opcode that uses verify semantics, OP_SUBSTRINGEQUALVERIFY that checks a splice of a string for equality.
Fun Fact: OP_CAT existed in Bitcoin untill 2010, when Satoshi “secretly” forked out a bunch of opcodes. So in theory the original Bitcoin implementation supported Post Quantum cryptography out of the box!
... FOR j in 0..=5 <0> ... FOR i in 0..=31 SWAP hash160 DUP <H(K_j_i_1)> EQUAL IF DROP <2**i> ADD ELSE <H(K_j_i_0)> EQUALVERIFY ENDIF ... END FOR TOALTSTACK ... END FOR DUP HASH160 ... IF CAT AVAILABLE FROMALTSTACK ... FOR j in 0..=5 FROMALTSTACK CAT ... END FOR EQUALVERIFY ... ELSE SUBSTRINGEQUALVERIFY AVAILABLE ... FOR j in 0..=5 FROMALTSTACK <0+j*4> <4+j*4> SUBSTRINGEQUALVERIFY DROP DROP DROP ... END FOR DROP ... END IF <pk> CHECKSIG
That’s a long script… but will it fit? We need to verify 20 bytes of message each bit takes around 10 bytes script, an average of 3.375 bytes per number (counting pushes), and two 21 bytes keys = 55.375 bytes of program space and 21 bytes of witness element per bit.
20*8*55.375 = 8860, which leaves 1140 bytes less than the limit for
the rest of the logic, which is plenty (around 15-40 bytes required for the rest
of the logic, leaving 1100 free for custom signature checking). The stack size
is 160 elements for the hash gadget, 3360 bytes.
This can probably be made a bit more efficient by expanding to a ternary representation.
SWAP hash160 DUP <H(K_j_i_0)> EQUAL IF DROP ELSE <3**i> SWAP DUP <H(K_j_i_T)> EQUAL IF DROP SUB ELSE <H(K_j_i_1)> EQUALVERIFY ADD ENDIF ENDIF
This should bring it up to roughly 85 bytes per trit, and there should be 101
log(2**160)/log(3) == 100.94), so about 8560 bytes… a bit cheaper!
But the witness stack is “only”
As a homework exercise, maybe someone can prove the optimal choice of radix for this protocol… My guess is that base 4 is optimal!
What about Taproot? As far as I’m aware the commitment scheme (
Q = pG + hash(pG
|| m)G) can be securely opened to m even with a quantum computer (finding
qG = Q might be trivial, but suppose key path was disabled, then
finding m and p such that the taproot equation holds should be difficult because
of the hash, but I’d need to certify that claim better). Therefore this
script can nest inside of a Tapscript path – Tapscript also does not impose a
length limit, 32 byte hashes could be used as well.
Further, to make keys reusable, there could be many Lamport keys comitted inside a taproot tree so that an address could be used for thousands of times before expiring. This could be used as a measure to protect accidental use rather than to support it.
Lastly, Schnorr actually has a stronger non-malleability property than ECDSA, the signatures will be binding to the approved transaction and once Lamport signed, even a quantum computer could not steal the funds.