CIP-0049

CIP	Title	Status	Category	Authors	Implementors	Discussions	Created	License
49	ECDSA and Schnorr signatures in Plutus Core	Active	Plutus	Koz Ross <koz@mlabs.city> Michael Peyton-Jones <michael.peyton-jones@iohk.io> Iñigo Querejeta Azurmendi <querejeta.azurmendi@iohk.io>	MLabs	#250	2022-04-27	Apache-2.0

Abstract

Support ECDSA and Schnorr signatures over the SECP256k1 curve in Plutus Core; specifically, allow validation of such signatures as builtins. These builtins work over BuiltinByteStrings.

Motivation: why is this CIP necessary?

Signature schemes based on the SECP256k1 curve are common in the blockchain industry; a notable user of these is Bitcoin. Supporting signature schemes which are used in other parts of the industry provides an interoperability benefit: we can verify signatures produced by other systems as they are today, without requiring other people to produce signatures specifically for us. This not only provides us with improved interoperability with systems based on Bitcoin, but also compatibility with other interoperability systems, such as Wanchain and Renbridge, which use SECP256k1 signatures for verification. Lastly, if we can verify Schnorr signatures, we can also verify Schnorr-compatible multi or threshold signatures, such as MuSig2 or Frost.

Specification

Two new builtin functions would be provided:

• A verification function for ECDSA signatures using the SECP256k1 curve; and
• A verification function for Schnorr signatures using the SECP256k1 curve.

These would be based on secp256k1, a reference implementation of both kinds of signature scheme in C. This implementation would be called from Haskell using direct bindings to C. These bindings would be defined in cardano-base, using its existing DSIGN interface, with new builtins in Plutus Core on the basis of the DSIGN interface for both schemes.

The builtins would be costed as follows: ECDSA signature verification has constant cost, as the message, verification key and signature are all fixed-width; Schnorr signature verification is instead linear in the message length, as this can be arbitrary, but as the length of the verification key and signature are constant, the costing will be constant in both.

More specifically, Plutus would gain the following primitive operations:

• verifyEcdsaSecp256k1Signature :: BuiltinByteString -> BuiltinByteString -> BuiltinByteString -> BuiltinBool, for verifying 32-byte message hashes signed using the ECDSA signature scheme on the SECP256k1 curve; and
• verifySchnorrSecp256k1Signature :: BuiltinByteString -> BuiltinByteString -> BuiltinByteString -> BuiltinBool, for verifying arbitrary binary messages signed using the Schnorr signature scheme on the SECP256k1 curve.

Both functions take parameters of a specific part of the signature scheme, even though they are all encoded as BuiltinByteStrings. In order, for both functions, these are:

1. A verification key;
2. An input to verify (either the message itself, or a hash);
3. A signature.

The two different schemes handle deserialization internally: specifically, there is a distinction made between 'external' representations, which are expected as arguments, and 'internal' representations, used only by the implementations themselves. This creates different expecations for each argument for both of these schemes; we describe these below.

For the ECDSA signature scheme, the requirements are as follows. Note that these differ from the serialization used by Bitcoin, as the serialisation of signatures uses DER-encoding, which result in variable size signatures up to 72 bytes (instead of the 64 byte encoding we describe in this document).

• The verification key must correspond to the (x, y) coordinates of a point on the SECP256k1 curve, where x, y are unsigned integers in big-endian form.
• The verification key must correspond to a result produced by secp256k1_ec_pubkey_serialize, when given a length argument of 33, and the SECP256K1_EC_COMPRESSED flag. This implies all of the following:
  • The verification key is 33 bytes long.
  • The first byte corresponds to the parity of the y coordinate; this is 0x02 if y is even, and 0x03 otherwise.
  • The remaining 32 bytes are the bytes of the x coordinate.
• The input to verify must be a 32-byte hash of the message to be checked. We assume that the caller of verifyEcdsaSecp256k1Signature receives the message and hashes it, rather than accepting a hash directly: doing so can be dangerous. Typically, the hashing function used would be SHA256; however, this is not required, as only the length is checked.
• The signature must correspond to two unsigned integers in big-endian form; henceforth r and s.
• The signature must correspond to a result produced by secp256k1_ecdsa_serialize_compact. This implies all of the following:
  • The signature is 64 bytes long.
  • The first 32 bytes are the bytes of r.
  • The last 32 bytes are the bytes of s.

      ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┯━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
      ┃ r <32 bytes> │ s <32 bytes>  ┃
      ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┷━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
      <--------- signature ---------->
  

For the Schnorr signature scheme, we have the following requirements, as described in the requirements for BIP-340:

• The verification key must correspond to the (x, y) coordinates of a point on the SECP256k1 curve, where x, y are unsigned integers in big-endian form.
• The verification key must correspond to a result produced by secp256k1_xonly_pubkey_serialize. This implies all of the following:
  • The verification key is 32 bytes long.
  • The bytes of the signature correspond to the x coordinate.
• The input to verify is the message to be checked; this can be of any length, and can contain any bytes in any position.
• The signature must correspond to a point R on the SECP256k1 curve, and an unsigned integer s in big-endian form.
• The signature must follow the BIP-340 standard for encoding. This implies all of the following:
  • The signature is 64 bytes long.
  • The first 32 bytes are the bytes of the x coordinate of R, as a big-endian unsigned integer.
  • The last 32 bytes are the bytes of s.

      ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┯━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
      ┃ R <32 bytes> │ s <32 bytes>  ┃
      ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┷━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
      <--------- signature ---------->
  

The builtin operations will error with a descriptive message if given inputs that don't correspond to the constraints above, return False if the signature fails to verify the input given the key, and True otherwise.

Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals?

We consider the implementation trustworthy: secp256k1 is the reference implementation for both signature schemes, and is already being used in production by Bitcoin. Specifically, ECDSA signatures over the SECP256k1 curve were used by Bitcoin before Taproot, while Schnorr signatures over the same curve have been used since Taproot.

An alternative approach could be to provide low-level primitives, which would allow any signature scheme (not just the ones under consideration here) to be implemented by whoever needs them. While this approach is certainly more flexible, it has two significant drawbacks:

• It requires 'rolling your own crypto', rather than re-using existing implementations. This has been shown historically to be a bad idea; furthermore, if existing implementations have undergone review and audit, any such re-implementations would give us the same assurances as those that have been reviewed and audited.
• It would be significantly costlier, as the computation would happen in Plutus Core. Given the significant on-chain size restrictions, this would likely be too costly for general use: many such schemes rely on large precomputed tables, for example, which are totally unviable on-chain.

It may be possible that some set of primitive can avoid both of these issues (for example, the suggestions in this CIP); in the meantime, providing direct support for commonly-used schemes such as these is worthwhile.

Backward Compatibility

At the Plutus Core level, implementing this proposal induces no backwards-incompatibility: the proposed new primitives do not break any existing functionality or affect any other builtins. Likewise, at levels above Plutus Core (such as PlutusTx), no existing functionality should be affected.

On-chain, this requires a hard fork.

Path to Active

Acceptance Criteria

• Include tests of functionality with implementation.
• Satisfaction of CIP-0035 requirements (Additions to the Plutus Core Builtins) including costing.
• Inclusion of SECP in Plutus core (as of Valentine hard fork).

Implementation Plan

• Provide an implementation: by MLabs, merged into Plutus.

Copyright

This CIP is licensed under Apache-2.0.