wouldnt including the output index solve the same problem? (Asking about why you sign a txn input with the UTXOs script pub key)

GPT-4:

You raise a valid point. Including the output index, along with the previous transaction ID, would indeed help uniquely identify the UTXO being spent. However, the primary reason for including the scriptPubKey is to ensure that the signature is only valid for a transaction that spends that specific UTXO to the correct recipient address or conditions specified in the scriptPubKey.

Remember that the scriptPubKey defines the conditions under which the UTXO can be spent (e.g., locked to a specific public key or a Bitcoin address). By including the scriptPubKey in the data being signed, you are effectively "binding" the signature to those conditions. This makes it impossible for an attacker to create a valid transaction that spends the same UTXO but sends the funds to a different address or changes the spending conditions, as the signature would no longer be valid for the modified transaction.

While including the output index and previous transaction ID in the signature does uniquely identify the UTXO, it does not bind the signature to the specific spending conditions set by the scriptPubKey. By including the scriptPubKey, you ensure that the signature is only valid for transactions that fulfill those conditions, thus providing an additional layer of security.

In summary, including the output index and transaction ID is essential for identifying the UTXO being spent, but including the scriptPubKey when signing a transaction input ensures that the signature is only valid for transactions that meet the spending conditions specified by the scriptPubKey, providing an extra layer of protection.

Me:

So youre saying before consensus is met, someone could broadcast another transaction that points to that UTXO, and then somehow create script ops that would spend it elsewhere? can you provide an example of this for educational purposes?

GPT-4:

Yes, that's the general idea. If the signature does not cover the scriptPubKey, it might be possible for an attacker to manipulate the transaction and change where the funds are sent. I'll provide an example to help illustrate this concept.

Let's assume you have a UTXO that you want to spend, and you create a transaction to send it to Address A.

You create a transaction with an input that references the UTXO (using the previous transaction ID and output index) and an output that sends the funds to Address A.

You sign the transaction, but only cover the previous transaction ID and output index in the signature, not the scriptPubKey.

Now, suppose an attacker intercepts your transaction before it is confirmed by the network.

The attacker creates a new transaction that also references the same UTXO as an input.

Instead of sending the funds to Address A, the attacker creates an output that sends the funds to their own address, Address B.

The attacker replaces the scriptSig in the new transaction with the one from your original transaction (since it only covers the previous transaction ID and output index, and not the scriptPubKey).

At this point, the attacker's transaction is considered valid by the network because the signature covers the previous transaction ID and output index, and the scriptSig contains a valid signature for the UTXO. If the attacker's transaction gets confirmed before your original transaction, the funds will be sent to Address B instead of Address A.

However, if the signature covers the scriptPubKey as well, the attacker cannot create a valid transaction that sends the funds to Address B, because the signature would no longer be valid when applied to a different scriptPubKey. The network would reject the attacker's transaction, and your original transaction sending funds to Address A would proceed as intended.

In summary, by including the scriptPubKey when signing a transaction input, you ensure that the signature is only valid for transactions that meet the spending conditions specified by the scriptPubKey. This provides an extra layer of protection against manipulation or theft by binding the signature to the specific UTXO and its associated spending conditions.

Just use command line, easier than messing around w other tools + you can write some bash to automate certain stuff

Oh, so that is why we hash the entire transaction for SIGHASH_ALL, so that nobody can alter any aspect of the transaction? How come we set other inputs scriptsig to 00 when signing one input then?

GPT-4:

Yes, you are correct that for SIGHASH_ALL, the entire transaction is hashed to ensure that nobody can alter any aspect of the transaction after it has been signed. If any part of the transaction changes after signing, the signature will become invalid.

When signing a specific input in a transaction with multiple inputs, the scriptSigs of the other inputs are temporarily set to empty (or 00) to ensure that the signatures for those inputs are not included in the hash being signed. This is because each input needs to be signed separately by the owner of the corresponding private key, and the signature for an input can't be part of the data being signed for that same input.

If the scriptSigs of the other inputs were not set to empty during the signing process, it would lead to a recursive problem, as the signature of one input would depend on the signatures of the other inputs, and vice versa.

After an input has been signed, its scriptSig is updated with the generated signature and public key. This process is repeated for each input in the transaction, and each input's signature covers the entire transaction structure (excluding the other input's scriptSigs), ensuring that any changes to the inputs or outputs will invalidate the signatures.

To summarize, the scriptSigs of the other inputs are set to empty during the signing process to avoid a recursive problem with the signatures. Each input is signed separately, and for SIGHASH_ALL, the signature commits to the entire transaction structure, ensuring its integrity.

Anyone working on a way to use nostr for file storage? Would be cool to get off of GCS or S3

And relatively cheap

Cloudflare would be good

Add recurring donations to app, $1, $3, $5 and then other — that or have to offer some premium service to stay afloat

Anyone have any suggestions for hosting a relay? Don’t feel like relying on AWS or GCP, guess I could port forward…Ngrok feels like simplest solution rn

How is this not taxable?