diff --git a/_data/schemas/topics.yaml b/_data/schemas/topics.yaml index 16150c53b2..fa7c4ebdca 100644 --- a/_data/schemas/topics.yaml +++ b/_data/schemas/topics.yaml @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ properties: - Contract Protocols - Developer Tools - Fee Management + - Invoicing - Lightning Network - Lightweight Client Support - Liquidity Management diff --git a/_topics/en/annex.md b/_topics/en/annex.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a2a0687014 --- /dev/null +++ b/_topics/en/annex.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +--- +title: Annex + +## Optional. Shorter name to use for reference style links e.g., "foo" +## will allow using the link [topic foo][]. Not case sensitive +# shortname: foo + +## Optional. An entry will be added to the topics index for each alias +#aliases: +# - Foo + +## Required. At least one category to which this topic belongs. See +## schema for options +categories: + - Scripts and Addresses + +## Optional. Produces a Markdown link with either "[title][]" or +## "[title](link)" +primary_sources: + - title: "BIP341: Taproot" + link: bip341 + +## Optional. Each entry requires "title" and "url". May also use "feature: +## true" to bold entry and "date" +optech_mentions: + - title: "Bitcoin Inquisition #22 adds an `-annexcarrier` runtime option" + url: /en/newsletters/2023/03/29/#bitcoin-inquisition-22 + + - title: Discussion about the taproot annex + url: /en/newsletters/2023/06/14/#discussion-about-the-taproot-annex + + - title: Suggestion to store fee-dependent timelock parameters in the taproot annex + url: /en/newsletters/2024/01/03/#fee-dependent-timelocks + +## Optional. Same format as "primary_sources" above +see_also: + - title: Taproot + link: topic taproot + +## Optional. Force the display (true) or non-display (false) of stub +## topic notice. Default is to display if the page.content is below a +## threshold word count +#stub: false + +## Required. Use Markdown formatting. Only one paragraph. No links allowed. +## Should be less than 500 characters +excerpt: > + The taproot **annex** is an optional field in the witness structure of + segwit v1 (taproot) inputs that currently has no defined purpose. + If an annex is present, any taproot and tapscript signatures must + commit to its value. + +--- +As of the implementation and activation of taproot, the annex was +reserved for future upgrades. Transactions containing an annex were not +relayed or mined by default by Bitcoin Core. There have been several +ideas for using the annex, as well as at least one attempt to define an +extensible data structure for the field. + +{% include references.md %} +{% include linkers/issues.md issues="" %} diff --git a/_topics/en/bip70-payment-protocol.md b/_topics/en/bip70-payment-protocol.md index 39b0851082..5761ea0469 100644 --- a/_topics/en/bip70-payment-protocol.md +++ b/_topics/en/bip70-payment-protocol.md @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ title: BIP70 payment protocol ## schema for options categories: - Wallet Collaboration Tools + - Invoicing ## Required. Use Markdown formatting. Only one paragraph. No links allowed. ## Should be less than 500 characters diff --git a/_topics/en/bls-signatures.md b/_topics/en/bls-signatures.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a33a3be11a --- /dev/null +++ b/_topics/en/bls-signatures.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +--- +title: BLS signatures + +## Optional. Shorter name to use for reference style links e.g., "foo" +## will allow using the link [topic foo][]. Not case sensitive +# shortname: foo + +## Optional. An entry will be added to the topics index for each alias +#aliases: +# - Foo + +## Required. At least one category to which this topic belongs. See +## schema for options +categories: + - Scripts and Addresses + +## Optional. Produces a Markdown link with either "[title][]" or +## "[title](link)" +#primary_sources: +# - title: Test +# - title: Example +# link: https://example.com + +## Optional. Each entry requires "title" and "url". May also use "feature: +## true" to bold entry and "date" +optech_mentions: + - title: Library announced for BLS signatures + url: /en/newsletters/2018/08/07/#library-announced-for-bls-signatures + + - title: "Presentation: compact multisignatures for smaller blockchains" + url: /en/newsletters/2018/10/09/#compact-multi-signatures-for-smaller-blockchains + + - title: "Using Bitcoin-compatible BLS signatures for Discree Log Contracts (DLCs)" + url: /en/newsletters/2022/08/17/#using-bitcoin-compatible-bls-signatures-for-dlcs + + - title: "Question about schnorr signatures versus BLS signatures" + url: /en/newsletters/2023/01/25/#bls-signatures-vs-schnorr + +## Optional. Same format as "primary_sources" above +see_also: + - title: Scriptless multisignatures + link: topic multisignature + +## Optional. Force the display (true) or non-display (false) of stub +## topic notice. Default is to display if the page.content is below a +## threshold word count +#stub: false + +## Required. Use Markdown formatting. Only one paragraph. No links allowed. +## Should be less than 500 characters +excerpt: > + Boneh-Lynn-Shacham signatures (**BLS signatures**) are digital + signatures that provide a different set of tradeoffs compared to the + ECDSA and schnorr signatures currently used in Bitcoin. +--- +Probably the most interesting property of BLS signatures is that they +allow non-interactive signature aggregation. For example, if Alice and +Bob both independently sign the same transaction, a third party can +combine their signatures into a single signature that proves both of +them signed. By comparison, using a Bitcoin's existing [schnorr +signatures][topic schnorr signatures], a single signature proving both +of them signed can only be produce through an interactive protocol like +[MuSig2][topic musig] where at least one of them receives the other's +partial signature before producing their own partial signature and +producing the complete signature. + +In theory, if other changes to Bitcoin were made and if support for BLS +signatures was added, miners could aggregate all signatures together +before producing a block, allowing blocks to contain only a single +signature, which would moderately improve onchain capacity and might +speed block verification when cached verification was unavailable (e.g. +during initial block download). + +BLS signatures are not directly compatible with the elliptic curve used +by Bitcoin and are not as well studied as [schnorr signatures][topic +schnorr signatures]. It would not be possible to use [signature +adaptors][topic adaptor signatures] and technology based on them (such +as [PTLCs][topic ptlc]) with BLS signatures. + +{% include references.md %} +{% include linkers/issues.md issues="" %} diff --git a/_topics/en/cross-input-signature-aggregation.md b/_topics/en/cross-input-signature-aggregation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..61f5988d34 --- /dev/null +++ b/_topics/en/cross-input-signature-aggregation.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +--- +title: Cross-input signature aggregation (CISA) + +## Optional. Shorter name to use for reference style links e.g., "foo" +## will allow using the link [topic foo][]. Not case sensitive +shortname: cisa + +## Optional. An entry will be added to the topics index for each alias +aliases: + - Half aggregation + +## Required. At least one category to which this topic belongs. See +## schema for options +categories: + - Scripts and Addresses + - Soft Forks + +## Optional. Produces a Markdown link with either "[title][]" or +## "[title](link)" +primary_sources: + - title: "Cross-input signature aggregation research repository" + link: https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/cross-input-aggregation + +## Optional. Each entry requires "title" and "url". May also use "feature: +## true" to bold entry and "date" +optech_mentions: + - title: "Taproot to not include cross-input signature aggregation" + url: /en/newsletters/2019/05/14/#no-cross-input-signature-aggregation + + - title: "Question: why does signature aggregation interefer with signature adaptors?" + url: /en/newsletters/2021/06/30/#why-does-blockwide-signature-aggregation-prevent-adaptor-signatures + + - title: Draft BIP about half aggregation of BIP340 schnorr signatures + url: /en/newsletters/2022/07/13/#half-aggregation-of-bip340-signatures + +## Optional. Same format as "primary_sources" above +see_also: + - title: Schnorr signatures + link: topic schnorr signatures + + - title: BLS signatures + link: topic bls signatures + +## Optional. Force the display (true) or non-display (false) of stub +## topic notice. Default is to display if the page.content is below a +## threshold word count +#stub: false + +## Required. Use Markdown formatting. Only one paragraph. No links allowed. +## Should be less than 500 characters +excerpt: > + **Cross-input signature aggregation** is a proposal to reduce the + number of signatures a transaction requires. In theory, every + signature required to a make a transaction valid could be combined into a + single signature that covers the whole transaction. + +--- +For example, Alice controls two [P2TR][topic taproot] UTXOs. Normally, +if she creates a transaction spending both UTXOs with a keypath spend, +she'll need to include one 16-vbyte signature in each output. However, +any node could aggregate both public keys from the UTXOs and Alice could +produce a single 16-vbyte [MuSig]topic musig]-style [scriptless +multisigature][topic multisignature] that corresponded to the aggregate +public key, proving that she controlled the private key for both of the +original public keys. + +Although inputs would still need to include a significant amount of +other data, such as the 36-vbyte outpoint that uniquely identifies the +UTXO being spent, CISA could provide a modest reduction in the size of +transactions with multiple inputs. It could make the per-participant +transaction fees for a [coinjoin][topic coinjoin] moderately cheaper than each +participant creating a transaction on their own, which could lead to +more people using coinjoin-style privacy. + +{% include references.md %} +{% include linkers/issues.md issues="" %} diff --git a/_topics/en/lnurl.md b/_topics/en/lnurl.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..afce637969 --- /dev/null +++ b/_topics/en/lnurl.md @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +--- +title: LNURL + +## Optional. Shorter name to use for reference style links e.g., "foo" +## will allow using the link [topic foo][]. Not case sensitive +# shortname: foo + +## Optional. An entry will be added to the topics index for each alias +aliases: + - Lightning Addresses + +## Required. At least one category to which this topic belongs. See +## schema for options +categories: + - Lightning Network + - Invoicing + +## Optional. Produces a Markdown link with either "[title][]" or +## "[title](link)" +primary_sources: + - title: "LNURL Documents (LUDs)" + link: https://github.com/lnurl/lud + +## Optional. Each entry requires "title" and "url". May also use "feature: +## true" to bold entry and "date" +optech_mentions: + - title: "Discussion about a BIP70 replacement, including a version that works with LNURL" + url: /en/newsletters/2021/03/03/#discussion-about-a-bip70-replacement + + - title: "Phoenix v1.4.12 adds support for the LNURL-pay protocol" + url: /en/newsletters/2021/06/23/#phoenix-adds-lnurl-pay + + - title: "Stacker News launched with LNURL authentication" + url: /en/newsletters/2021/07/21/#lightning-powered-news-site-stacker-news-launches + + - title: "Lightning Address identifiers announced based on LNURL" + url: /en/newsletters/2021/09/22/#lightning-address-identifiers-announced + + - title: "BTCPay Server #3083 allows administrators to log in using LNURL authentication" + url: /en/newsletters/2022/01/26/#btcpay-server-3083 + + - title: "C-Lightning #5121 updates its `invoice` RPC for improved LNURL compatibility" + url: /en/newsletters/2022/04/06/#c-lightning-5121 + + - title: Large size of blinded paths may make them dependent on invoice protocols like LNURL or offers + url: /en/newsletters/2022/06/15/#blinded-paths + + - title: Dicussion about how to make LNURL and offers compatible + url: /en/newsletters/2022/06/15/#lnurl-plus-bolt12 + + - title: "BTCPay Server #3709 adds support for pull payments to be received via a LNURL withdraw" + url: /en/newsletters/2022/07/06/#btcpay-server-3709 + + - title: Discussion about offers-compatible Lightning addresses + url: /en/newsletters/2023/11/22/#offers-compatible-ln-addresses + +## Optional. Same format as "primary_sources" above +see_also: + - title: Offers + link: topic offers + +## Optional. Force the display (true) or non-display (false) of stub +## topic notice. Default is to display if the page.content is below a +## threshold word count +#stub: false + +## Required. Use Markdown formatting. Only one paragraph. No links allowed. +## Should be less than 500 characters +excerpt: > + **LNURL** is a set of protocols for communicating information using + URLs and HTTPS. Perhaps the most common use of LNURL is transferring + BOLT11 invoices. A related protocol is **Lightning Addresses** which + allow transforming a static identifier that looks like an RFC822 email + address into a BOLT11 invoice. +--- +An upside of LNURL is their flexibility and use of widely understood +HTTP: a web developer can use their existing skills to interact with LN +clients. This allows web developers to handle business logic on the web +side of their application and only use a LN node to send and receive +payments. It also makes it easy for web developers to use LN node +capabilities in new and interesting ways, such as LNURL-based +authentication. + +A downside of LNURL is that hosted LNURL services may learn information +about their users' payments and other actions. For example, many +Lightning Addresses are managed by centralized services that have the +capability to intercept payments and potentially track how much a user +receives through their Lightning Address. For this reason, alternatives +to LNURL or additional layers on top of it have been proposed. + +{% include references.md %} +{% include linkers/issues.md issues="" %} diff --git a/_topics/en/offers.md b/_topics/en/offers.md index 7aee5f8061..20ef55854a 100644 --- a/_topics/en/offers.md +++ b/_topics/en/offers.md @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ aliases: ## schema for options categories: - Lightning Network + - Invoicing + - Wallet Collaboration Tools ## Required. Use Markdown formatting. Only one paragraph. No links allowed. ## Should be less than 500 characters