bitcoinbook/ch06.asciidoc

[[ch06]]

[[tx_fees]]
==== Transaction Fees

((("transactions", "outputs and inputs", "transaction fees")))((("fees",
"transaction fees")))((("mining and consensus", "rewards and
fees")))Most transactions include transaction fees, which compensate the
bitcoin miners for securing the network. Fees also serve as a security
mechanism themselves, by making it economically infeasible for attackers
to flood the network with transactions. Mining and the fees and rewards
collected by miners are discussed in more detail in <<mining>>.

This section examines how transaction fees are included in a typical
transaction. Most wallets calculate and include transaction fees
automatically. However, if you are constructing transactions
programmatically, or using a command-line interface, you must manually
account for and include these fees.

Transaction fees serve as an incentive to include (mine) a transaction
into the next block and also as a disincentive against abuse of the
system by imposing a small cost on every transaction. Transaction fees
are collected by the miner who mines the block that records the
transaction on the blockchain.

Transaction fees are calculated based on the size of the transaction in
kilobytes, not the value of the transaction in bitcoin. Overall,
transaction fees are set based on market forces within the Bitcoin
network. Miners prioritize transactions based on many different
criteria, including fees, and might even process transactions for free
under certain circumstances. Transaction fees affect the processing
priority, meaning that a transaction with sufficient fees is likely to
be included in the next block mined, whereas a transaction with
insufficient or no fees might be delayed, processed on a best-effort
basis after a few blocks, or not processed at all. Transaction fees are
not mandatory, and transactions without fees might be processed
eventually; however, including transaction fees encourages priority
processing.

Over time, the way transaction fees are calculated and the effect they
have on transaction prioritization has evolved. At first, transaction
fees were fixed and constant across the network. Gradually, the fee
structure relaxed and may be influenced by market forces, based on
network capacity and transaction volume. Since at least the beginning of
2016, capacity limits in bitcoin have created competition between
transactions, resulting in higher fees and effectively making free
transactions a thing of the past. Zero fee or very low fee transactions
rarely get mined and sometimes will not even be propagated across the
network.

((("fees", "fee relay policies")))((("minrelaytxfee option")))In Bitcoin
Core, fee relay policies are set by the +minrelaytxfee+ option. The
current default +minrelaytxfee+ is 0.00001 bitcoin or a hundredth of a
millibitcoin per kilobyte. Therefore, by default, transactions with a
fee less than 0.00001 bitcoin are treated as free and are only relayed
if there is space in the mempool; otherwise, they are dropped. Bitcoin
nodes can override the default fee relay policy by adjusting the value
of +minrelaytxfee+.

((("dynamic fees")))((("fees", "dynamic fees")))Any bitcoin service that
creates transactions, including wallets, exchanges, retail applications,
etc., _must_ implement dynamic fees. Dynamic fees can be implemented
through a third-party fee estimation service or with a built-in fee
estimation algorithm. If you're unsure, begin with a third-party service
and as you gain experience design and implement your own algorithm if
you wish to remove the third-party dependency.

Fee estimation algorithms calculate the appropriate fee, based on
capacity and the fees offered by "competing" transactions. These
algorithms range from simplistic (average or median fee in the last
block) to sophisticated (statistical analysis). They estimate the
necessary fee (in satoshis per byte) that will give a transaction a high
probability of being selected and included within a certain number of
blocks. Most services offer users the option of choosing high, medium,
or low priority fees. High priority means users pay higher fees but the
transaction is likely to be included in the next block. Medium and low
priority means users pay lower transaction fees but the transactions may
take much longer to confirm.

((("bitcoinfees (third-party service)")))Many wallet applications use
third-party services for fee calculations. One popular service is
http://bitcoinfees.21.co/[_http://bitcoinfees.21.co_], which provides an
API and a visual chart showing the fee in satoshi/byte for different
priorities.

[TIP]
====
((("static fees")))((("fees", "static fees")))Static fees are no longer
viable on the Bitcoin network. Wallets that set static fees will produce
a poor user experience as transactions will often get "stuck" and remain
unconfirmed. Users who don't understand bitcoin transactions and fees
are dismayed by "stuck" transactions because they think they've lost
their money.
====

The chart in <<bitcoinfees21co>> shows the real-time estimate of fees in
10 satoshi/byte increments and the expected confirmation time (in
minutes and number of blocks) for transactions with fees in each range.
For each fee range (e.g., 61&#x2013;70 satoshi/byte), two horizontal
bars show the number of unconfirmed transactions (1405) and total number
of transactions in the past 24 hours (102,975), with fees in that range.
Based on the graph, the recommended high-priority fee at this time was
80 satoshi/byte, a fee likely to result in the transaction being mined
in the very next block (zero block delay). For perspective, the median
transaction size is 226 bytes, so the recommended fee for a transaction
size would be 18,080 satoshis (0.00018080 BTC).

The fee estimation data can be retrieved via a simple HTTP REST API, at
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/api/v1/fees/recommended[https://bitcoinfees.21.co/api/v1/fees/recommended].
For example, on the command line using the +curl+ command:

.Using the fee estimation API
----
$ curl https://bitcoinfees.21.co/api/v1/fees/recommended

{"fastestFee":80,"halfHourFee":80,"hourFee":60}
----

The API returns a JSON object with the current fee estimate for fastest
confirmation (+fastestFee+), confirmation within three blocks
(+halfHourFee+) and six blocks (+hourFee+), in satoshi per byte.

[[bitcoinfees21co]]
.Fee estimation service bitcoinfees.21.co
image::images/mbc2_0602.png[Fee Estimation Service bitcoinfees.21.co]

==== Adding Fees to Transactions

The data structure of transactions does not have a field for fees.
Instead, fees are implied as the difference between the sum of inputs
and the sum of outputs. Any excess amount that remains after all outputs
have been deducted from all inputs is the fee that is collected by the
miners:

[[tx_fee_equation]]
.Transaction fees are implied, as the excess of inputs minus outputs:
----
Fees = Sum(Inputs) – Sum(Outputs)
----

This is a somewhat confusing element of transactions and an important
point to understand, because if you are constructing your own
transactions you must ensure you do not inadvertently include a very
large fee by underspending the inputs. That means that you must account
for all inputs, if necessary by creating change, or you will end up
giving the miners a very big tip!

For example, if you consume a 20-bitcoin UTXO to make a 1-bitcoin
payment, you must include a 19-bitcoin change output back to your
wallet. Otherwise, the 19-bitcoin "leftover" will be counted as a
transaction fee and will be collected by the miner who mines your
transaction in a block. Although you will receive priority processing
and make a miner very happy, this is probably not what you intended.

[WARNING]
====
((("warnings and cautions", "change outputs")))If you forget to add a
change output in a manually constructed transaction, you will be paying
the change as a transaction fee. "Keep the change!" might not be what
you intended.
====

((("use cases", "buying coffee")))Let's see how this works in practice,
by looking at Alice's coffee purchase again. Alice wants to spend 0.015
bitcoin to pay for coffee. To ensure this transaction is processed
promptly, she will want to include a transaction fee, say 0.001. That
will mean that the total cost of the transaction will be 0.016. Her
wallet must therefore source a set of UTXO that adds up to 0.016 bitcoin
or more and, if necessary, create change. Let's say her wallet has a
0.2-bitcoin UTXO available. It will therefore need to consume this UTXO,
create one output to Bob's Cafe for 0.015, and a second output with
0.184 bitcoin in change back to her own wallet, leaving 0.001 bitcoin
unallocated, as an implicit fee for the transaction.

((("use cases", "charitable donations")))((("charitable donations")))Now
let's look at a different scenario. Eugenia, our children's charity
director in the Philippines, has completed a fundraiser to purchase
schoolbooks for the children. She received several thousand small
donations from people all around the world, totaling 50 bitcoin, so her
wallet is full of very small payments (UTXO). Now she wants to purchase
hundreds of schoolbooks from a local publisher, paying in bitcoin.

As Eugenia's wallet application tries to construct a single larger
payment transaction, it must source from the available UTXO set, which
is composed of many smaller amounts. That means that the resulting
transaction will source from more than a hundred small-value UTXO as
inputs and only one output, paying the book publisher. A transaction
with that many inputs will be larger than one kilobyte, perhaps several
kilobytes in size. As a result, it will require a much higher fee than
the median-sized transaction.

Eugenia's wallet application will calculate the appropriate fee by
measuring the size of the transaction and multiplying that by the
per-kilobyte fee. Many wallets will overpay fees for larger transactions
to ensure the transaction is processed promptly. The higher fee is not
because Eugenia is spending more money, but because her transaction is
more complex and larger in size--the fee is independent of the
transaction's bitcoin value.((("", startref="Tout06")))

[[tx_script]]
[role="pagebreak-before less_space_h1"]
=== Transaction Scripts and Script Language

((("transactions", "scripts and Script language",
id="Tsript06")))((("scripting", "transactions and",
id="Stransact06")))The bitcoin transaction script language, called
_Script_, is a Forth-like reverse-polish notation stack-based execution
language. If that sounds like gibberish, you probably haven't studied
1960s programming languages, but that's ok&#x2014;we will explain it all
in this chapter. Both the locking script placed on an UTXO and the
unlocking script are written in this scripting language. When a
transaction is validated, the unlocking script in each input is executed
alongside the corresponding locking script to see if it satisfies the
spending condition.

Script is a very simple language that was designed to be limited in
scope and executable on a range of hardware, perhaps as simple as an
embedded device. It requires minimal processing and cannot do many of
the fancy things modern programming languages can do. For its use in
validating programmable money, this is a deliberate security feature.

((("Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH)")))Today, most transactions processed
through the Bitcoin network have the form "Payment to Bob's Bitcoin
address" and are based on a script called a Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash
script.  However, bitcoin transactions are not limited to the "Payment
to Bob's Bitcoin address" script. In fact, locking scripts can be
written to express a vast variety of complex conditions. In order to
understand these more complex scripts, we must first understand the
basics of transaction scripts and script language.

In this section, we will demonstrate the basic components of the bitcoin
transaction scripting language and show how it can be used to express
simple conditions for spending and how those conditions can be satisfied
by unlocking scripts.

[TIP]
====
((("programmable money")))Bitcoin transaction validation is not based on
a static pattern, but instead is achieved through the execution of a
scripting language. This language allows for a nearly infinite variety
of conditions to be expressed. This is how bitcoin gets the power of
"programmable money."
====

==== Turing Incompleteness

((("Turing incompleteness")))The bitcoin transaction script language
contains many operators, but is deliberately limited in one important
way--there are no loops or complex flow control capabilities other than
conditional flow control. This ensures that the language is not _Turing
Complete_, meaning that scripts have limited complexity and predictable
execution times. Script is not a general-purpose language.
((("denial-of-service attacks")))((("denial-of-service attacks",
see="also security")))((("security", "denial-of-service attacks")))These
limitations ensure that the language cannot be used to create an
infinite loop or other form of "logic bomb" that could be embedded in a
transaction in a way that causes a denial-of-service attack against the
Bitcoin network. Remember, every transaction is validated by every full
node on the Bitcoin network. A limited language prevents the transaction
validation mechanism from being used as a vulnerability.

==== Stateless Verification

((("stateless verification")))The bitcoin transaction script language is
stateless, in that there is no state prior to execution of the script,
or state saved after execution of the script. Therefore, all the
information needed to execute a script is contained within the script. A
script will predictably execute the same way on any system. If your
system verifies a script, you can be sure that every other system in the
Bitcoin network will also verify the script, meaning that a valid
transaction is valid for everyone and everyone knows this. This
predictability of outcomes is an essential benefit of the Bitcoin
system.

[[tx_lock_unlock]]
==== Script Construction (Lock + Unlock)

Bitcoin's transaction validation engine relies on two types of scripts
to validate transactions: a locking script and an unlocking script.

((("locking scripts")))((("unlocking scripts")))((("scripting", "locking
scripts")))A locking script is a spending condition placed on an output:
it specifies the conditions that must be met to spend the output in the
future. ((("scriptPubKey")))Historically, the locking script was called
a _scriptPubKey_, because it usually contained a public key or Bitcoin
address (public key hash). In this book we refer to it as a "locking
script" to acknowledge the much broader range of possibilities of this
scripting technology. In most bitcoin applications, what we refer to as
a locking script will appear in the source code as +scriptPubKey+.
((("witnesses")))((("cryptographic puzzles")))You will also see the
locking script referred to as a _witness script_ (see <<segwit>>) or
more generally as a _cryptographic puzzle_. These terms all mean the
same thing, at different levels of abstraction.

An unlocking script is a script that "solves," or satisfies, the
conditions placed on an output by a locking script and allows the output
to be spent. Unlocking scripts are part of every transaction input. Most
of the time they contain a digital signature produced by the user's
wallet from his or her private key. ((("scriptSig")))Historically, the
unlocking script was called _scriptSig_, because it usually contained a
digital signature. In most bitcoin applications, the source code refers
to the unlocking script as +scriptSig+. You will also see the unlocking
script referred to as a _witness_ (see <<segwit>>). In this book, we
refer to it as an "unlocking script" to acknowledge the much broader
range of locking script requirements, because not all unlocking scripts
must contain signatures.

Every bitcoin validating node will validate transactions by executing
the locking and unlocking scripts together. Each input contains an
unlocking script and refers to a previously existing UTXO. The
validation software will copy the unlocking script, retrieve the UTXO
referenced by the input, and copy the locking script from that UTXO. The
unlocking and locking script are then executed in sequence. The input is
valid if the unlocking script satisfies the locking script conditions
(see <<script_exec>>). All the inputs are validated independently, as
part of the overall validation of the transaction.

Note that the UTXO is permanently recorded in the blockchain, and
therefore is invariable and is unaffected by failed attempts to spend it
by reference in a new transaction. Only a valid transaction that
correctly satisfies the conditions of the output results in the output
being considered as "spent" and removed from the set of unspent
transaction outputs (UTXO set).

<<scriptSig_and_scriptPubKey>> is an example of the unlocking and
locking scripts for the most common type of bitcoin transaction (a
payment to a public key hash), showing the combined script resulting
from the concatenation of the unlocking and locking scripts prior to
script validation.

[[scriptSig_and_scriptPubKey]]
.Combining scriptSig and scriptPubKey to evaluate a transaction script
image::images/mbc2_0603.png["scriptSig_and_scriptPubKey"]

===== The script execution stack

Bitcoin's scripting language is called a stack-based language because it
uses a data structure called a _stack_. A stack is a very simple data
structure that can be visualized as a stack of cards. A stack allows two
operations: push and pop. Push adds an item on top of the stack. Pop
removes the top item from the stack. Operations on a stack can only act
on the topmost item on the stack. A stack data structure is also called
a Last-In-First-Out, or "LIFO" queue.

The scripting language executes the script by processing each item from
left to right. Numbers (data constants) are pushed onto the stack.
Operators push or pop one or more parameters from the stack, act on
them, and might push a result onto the stack. For example, +OP_ADD+ will
pop two items from the stack, add them, and push the resulting sum onto
the stack.

Conditional operators evaluate a condition, producing a boolean result
of TRUE or FALSE. For example, +OP_EQUAL+ pops two items from the stack
and pushes TRUE (TRUE is represented by the number 1) if they are equal
or FALSE (represented by zero) if they are not equal. Bitcoin
transaction scripts usually contain a conditional operator, so that they
can produce the TRUE result that signifies a valid transaction.

===== A simple script

Now let's apply what we've learned about scripts and stacks to some simple examples.

In <<simplemath_script>>, the script +2 3 OP_ADD 5 OP_EQUAL+
demonstrates the arithmetic addition operator +OP_ADD+, adding two
numbers and putting the result on the stack, followed by the conditional
operator +OP_EQUAL+, which checks that the resulting sum is equal to
+5+. For brevity, the +OP_+ prefix is omitted in the step-by-step
example. For more details on the available script operators and
functions, see <<tx_script_ops>>.

Although most locking scripts refer to a public key hash (essentially, a
Bitcoin address), thereby requiring proof of ownership to spend the
funds, the script does not have to be that complex. Any combination of
locking and unlocking scripts that results in a TRUE value is valid. The
simple arithmetic we used as an example of the scripting language is
also a valid locking script that can be used to lock a transaction
output.

Use part of the arithmetic example script as the locking script:

----
3 OP_ADD 5 OP_EQUAL
----

which can be satisfied by a transaction containing an input with the
unlocking script:

----
2
----

The validation software combines the locking and unlocking scripts and
the resulting script is:

----
2 3 OP_ADD 5 OP_EQUAL
----

As we saw in the step-by-step example in <<simplemath_script>>, when
this script is executed, the result is +OP_TRUE+, making the transaction
valid. Not only is this a valid transaction output locking script, but
the resulting UTXO could be spent by anyone with the arithmetic skills
to know that the number 2 satisfies the script.

[TIP]
====
((("transactions", "valid and invalid")))Transactions are valid if the
top result on the stack is +TRUE+ (noted as ++&#x7b;0x01&#x7d;++), any
other nonzero value, or if the stack is empty after script execution.
Transactions are invalid if the top value on the stack is +FALSE+ (a
zero-length empty value, noted as ++&#x7b;&#x7d;++) or if script
execution is halted explicitly by an operator, such as +OP_VERIFY+,
+OP_RETURN+, or a conditional terminator such as +OP_ENDIF+. See
<<tx_script_ops>> for details.
====

[[simplemath_script]]
.Bitcoin's script validation doing simple math
image::images/mbc2_0604.png["TxScriptSimpleMathExample"]

[role="pagebreak-before"]
The following is a slightly more complex script, which calculates ++2 +
7 -- 3 + 1++. Notice that when the script contains several operators in
a row, the stack allows the results of one operator to be acted upon by
the next operator:

----
2 7 OP_ADD 3 OP_SUB 1 OP_ADD 7 OP_EQUAL
----

Try validating the preceding script yourself using pencil and paper.
When the script execution ends, you should be left with the value +TRUE+
on the stack.

[[script_exec]]
===== Separate execution of unlocking and locking scripts

((("security", "locking and unlocking scripts")))In the original Bitcoin
client, the unlocking and locking scripts were concatenated and executed
in sequence. For security reasons, this was changed in 2010, because of
a vulnerability that allowed a malformed unlocking script to push data
onto the stack and corrupt the locking script. In the current
implementation, the scripts are executed separately with the stack
transferred between the two executions, as described next.

First, the unlocking script is executed, using the stack execution
engine. If the unlocking script is executed without errors (e.g., it has
no "dangling" operators left over), the main stack is copied and the
locking script is executed. If the result of executing the locking
script with the stack data copied from the unlocking script is "TRUE,"
the unlocking script has succeeded in resolving the conditions imposed
by the locking script and, therefore, the input is a valid authorization
to spend the UTXO. If any result other than "TRUE" remains after
execution of the combined script, the input is invalid because it has
failed to satisfy the spending conditions placed on the UTXO.


[[p2pkh]]
==== Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH)

((("Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH)")))The vast majority of transactions
processed on the Bitcoin network spend outputs locked with a
Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash or "P2PKH" script. These outputs contain a
locking script that locks the output to a public key hash, more commonly
known as a Bitcoin address. An output locked by a P2PKH script can be
unlocked (spent) by presenting a public key and a digital signature
created by the corresponding private key (see <<digital_sigs>>).

((("use cases", "buying coffee")))For example, let's look at Alice's
payment to Bob's Cafe again. Alice made a payment of 0.015 bitcoin to
the cafe's Bitcoin address. That transaction output would have a locking
script of the form:

----
OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <Cafe Public Key Hash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
----

The +Cafe Public Key Hash+ is equivalent to the Bitcoin address of the
cafe, without the Base58Check encoding. Most applications would show the
_public key hash_ in hexadecimal encoding and not the familiar Bitcoin
address Base58Check format that begins with a "1."

The preceding locking script can be satisfied with an unlocking script
of the form:

----
<Cafe Signature> <Cafe Public Key>
----

The two scripts together would form the following combined validation
script:

----
<Cafe Signature> <Cafe Public Key> OP_DUP OP_HASH160
<Cafe Public Key Hash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
----

When executed, this combined script will evaluate to TRUE if, and only
if, the unlocking script matches the conditions set by the locking
script. In other words, the result will be TRUE if the unlocking script
has a valid signature from the cafe's private key that corresponds to
the public key hash set as an encumbrance.

Figures pass:[<a data-type="xref" href="#P2PubKHash1"
data-xrefstyle="select: labelnumber">#P2PubKHash1</a>] and pass:[<a
data-type="xref" href="#P2PubKHash2" data-xrefstyle="select:
labelnumber">#P2PubKHash2</a>] show (in two parts) a step-by-step
execution of the combined script, which will prove this is a valid
transaction.((("", startref="Tsript06")))((("",
startref="Stransact06")))

[[P2PubKHash1]]
.Evaluating a script for a P2PKH transaction (part 1 of 2)
image::images/mbc2_0605.png["Tx_Script_P2PubKeyHash_1"]

[[P2PubKHash2]]
.Evaluating a script for a P2PKH transaction (part 2 of 2)
image::images/mbc2_0606.png["Tx_Script_P2PubKeyHash_2"]

[[digital_sigs]]
=== Digital Signatures (ECDSA)

((("transactions", "digital signatures and", id="Tdigsig06")))So far, we
have not delved into any detail about "digital signatures." In this
section we look at how digital signatures work and how they can present
proof of ownership of a private key without revealing that private key.

((("digital signatures", "algorithm used")))((("Elliptic Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)")))The digital signature algorithm used in
bitcoin is the _Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm_, or _ECDSA_.
ECDSA is the algorithm used for digital signatures based on elliptic
curve private/public key pairs, as described in <<elliptic_curve>>.
ECDSA is used by the script functions +OP_CHECKSIG+,
+OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY+, +OP_CHECKMULTISIG+, and +OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY+.
Any time you see those in a locking script, the unlocking script must
contain an ECDSA signature.

((("digital signatures", "purposes of")))A digital signature serves
three purposes in bitcoin (see the following sidebar). First, the
signature proves that the owner of the private key, who is by
implication the owner of the funds, has _authorized_ the spending of
those funds. Secondly, the proof of authorization is _undeniable_
(nonrepudiation). Thirdly, the signature proves that the transaction (or
specific parts of the transaction) have not and _cannot be modified_ by
anyone after it has been signed.

Note that each transaction input is signed independently. This is
critical, as neither the signatures nor the inputs have to belong to or
be applied by the same "owners." In fact, a specific transaction scheme
called "CoinJoin" uses this fact to create multi-party transactions for
privacy.

[NOTE]
====
Each transaction input and any signature it may contain is _completely_
independent of any other input or signature. Multiple parties can
collaborate to construct transactions and sign only one input each.
====

[[digital_signature_definition]]
.Wikipedia's Definition of a "Digital Signature"
****
((("digital signatures", "defined")))A digital signature is a
mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital
message or documents. A valid digital signature gives a recipient reason
to believe that the message was created by a known sender
(authentication), that the sender cannot deny having sent the message
(nonrepudiation), and that the message was not altered in transit
(integrity).

_Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature_
****

==== How Digital Signatures Work

((("digital signatures", "how they work")))A digital signature is a
_mathematical scheme_ that consists of two parts. The first part is an
algorithm for creating a signature, using a private key (the signing
key), from a message (the transaction). The second part is an algorithm
that allows anyone to verify the signature, given also the message and a
public key.

===== Creating a digital signature

In bitcoin's implementation of the ECDSA algorithm, the "message" being
signed is the transaction, or more accurately a hash of a specific
subset of the data in the transaction (see <<sighash_types>>). The
signing key is the user's private key. The result is the signature:

latexmath:[\(Sig = F_{sig}(F_{hash}(m), dA)\)]

where:

* _dA_ is the signing private key
* _m_ is the transaction (or parts of it)
* _F_~_hash_~ is the hashing function
* _F_~_sig_~ is the signing algorithm
* _Sig_ is the resulting signature

More details on the mathematics of ECDSA can be found in <<ecdsa_math>>.

The function _F_~_sig_~ produces a signature +Sig+ that is composed of
two values, commonly referred to as +R+ and +S+:

----
Sig = (R, S)
----

((("Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)")))Now that the two values +R+
and +S+ have been calculated, they are serialized into a byte-stream
using an international standard encoding scheme called the
_Distinguished Encoding Rules_, or _DER_.

[[seralization_of_signatures_der]]
===== Serialization of signatures (DER)

Let's look at the transaction Alice ((("use cases", "buying coffee",
id="alicesixtwo")))created again. In the transaction input there is an
unlocking script that contains the following DER-encoded signature from
Alice's wallet:

----
3045022100884d142d86652a3f47ba4746ec719bbfbd040a570b1deccbb6498c75c4ae24cb02204b9f039ff08df09cbe9f6addac960298cad530a863ea8f53982c09db8f6e381301
----

That signature is a serialized byte-stream of the +R+ and +S+ values
produced by Alice's wallet to prove she owns the private key authorized
to spend that output. The serialization format consists of nine elements
as follows:

* +0x30+&#x2014;indicating the start of a DER sequence
* +0x45+&#x2014;the length of the sequence (69 bytes)
  * +0x02+&#x2014;an integer value follows
  * +0x21+&#x2014;the length of the integer (33 bytes)
  * +R+&#x2014;++00884d142d86652a3f47ba4746ec719bbfbd040a570b1deccbb6498c75c4ae24cb++
  * +0x02+&#x2014;another integer follows
  * +0x20+&#x2014;the length of the integer (32 bytes)
  * +S+&#x2014;++4b9f039ff08df09cbe9f6addac960298cad530a863ea8f53982c09db8f6e3813++
* A suffix (+0x01+) indicating the type of hash used (+SIGHASH_ALL+)

See if you can decode Alice's serialized (DER-encoded) signature using
this list. The important numbers are +R+ and +S+; the rest of the data
is part of the DER encoding scheme.

==== Verifying the Signature

((("digital signatures", "verifying")))To verify the signature, one must
have the signature (+R+ and +S+), the serialized transaction, and the
public key (that corresponds to the private key used to create the
signature). Essentially, verification of a signature means "Only the
owner of the private key that generated this public key could have
produced this signature on this transaction."

The signature verification algorithm takes the message (a hash of the
transaction or parts of it), the signer's public key and the signature
(+R+ and +S+ values), and returns TRUE if the signature is valid for
this message and public key.

[[sighash_types]]
==== Signature Hash Types (SIGHASH)

((("digital signatures", "signature hash
types")))((("commitment")))Digital signatures are applied to messages,
which in the case of bitcoin, are the transactions themselves. The
signature implies a _commitment_ by the signer to specific transaction
data. In the simplest form, the signature applies to the entire
transaction, thereby committing all the inputs, outputs, and other
transaction fields. However, a signature can commit to only a subset of
the data in a transaction, which is useful for a number of scenarios as
we will see in this section.

((("SIGHASH flags")))Bitcoin signatures have a way of indicating which
part of a transaction's data is included in the hash signed by the
private key using a +SIGHASH+ flag. The +SIGHASH+ flag is a single byte
that is appended to the signature. Every signature has a +SIGHASH+ flag
and the flag can be different from input to input. A transaction with
three signed inputs may have three signatures with different +SIGHASH+
flags, each signature signing (committing) different parts of the
transaction.

Remember, each input may contain a signature in its unlocking script. As
a result, a transaction that contains several inputs may have signatures
with different +SIGHASH+ flags that commit different parts of the
transaction in each of the inputs. Note also that bitcoin transactions
may contain inputs from different "owners," who may sign only one input
in a partially constructed (and invalid) transaction, collaborating with
others to gather all the necessary signatures to make a valid
transaction. Many of the +SIGHASH+ flag types only make sense if you
think of multiple participants collaborating outside the Bitcoin network
and updating a partially signed transaction.

[role="pagebreak-before"]
There are three +SIGHASH+ flags: +ALL+, +NONE+, and +SINGLE+, as shown
in <<sighash_types_and_their>>.

[[sighash_types_and_their]]
.SIGHASH types and their meanings
[options="header"]
|=======================
|+SIGHASH+ flag| Value | Description
| +ALL+ | 0x01 | Signature applies to all inputs and outputs
| +NONE+ | 0x02 | Signature applies to all inputs, none of the outputs
| +SINGLE+ | 0x03 | Signature applies to all inputs but only the one output with the same index number as the signed input
|=======================

In addition, there is a modifier flag +SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY+, which can
be combined with each of the preceding flags. When +ANYONECANPAY+ is
set, only one input is signed, leaving the rest (and their sequence
numbers) open for modification. The +ANYONECANPAY+ has the value +0x80+
and is applied by bitwise OR, resulting in the combined flags as shown
in <<sighash_types_with_modifiers>>.

[[sighash_types_with_modifiers]]
.SIGHASH types with modifiers and their meanings
[options="header"]
|=======================
|SIGHASH flag| Value | Description
| ALL\|ANYONECANPAY | 0x81 | Signature applies to one input and all outputs
| NONE\|ANYONECANPAY | 0x82 | Signature applies to one input, none of the outputs
| SINGLE\|ANYONECANPAY | 0x83 | Signature applies to one input and the output with the same index number
|=======================

The way +SIGHASH+ flags are applied during signing and verification is
that a copy of the transaction is made and certain fields within are
truncated (set to zero length and emptied). The resulting transaction is
serialized. The +SIGHASH+ flag is added to the end of the serialized
transaction and the result is hashed. The hash itself is the "message"
that is signed. Depending on which +SIGHASH+ flag is used, different
parts of the transaction are truncated. The resulting hash depends on
different subsets of the data in the transaction. By including the
+SIGHASH+ as the last step before hashing, the signature commits the
+SIGHASH+ type as well, so it can't be changed (e.g., by a miner).

[NOTE]
====
All +SIGHASH+ types sign the transaction +nLocktime+ field (see
<<transaction_locktime_nlocktime>>). In addition, the +SIGHASH+ type
itself is appended to the transaction before it is signed, so that it
can't be modified once signed.
====

In the example of Alice's transaction (see the list in
<<seralization_of_signatures_der>>), we saw that the last part of the
DER-encoded signature was +01+, which is the +SIGHASH_ALL+ flag. This
locks the transaction data, so Alice's signature is committing the state
of all inputs and outputs. This is the most common signature form.

Let's look at some of the other +SIGHASH+ types and how they can be used
in practice:

+ALL|ANYONECANPAY+ :: ((("charitable donations")))((("use cases",
"charitable donations")))This construction can be used to make a
"crowdfunding&#x201d;-style transaction. Someone attempting to raise
funds can construct a transaction with a single output. The single
output pays the "goal" amount to the fundraiser. Such a transaction is
obviously not valid, as it has no inputs. However, others can now amend
it by adding an input of their own, as a donation. They sign their own
input with +ALL|ANYONECANPAY+. Unless enough inputs are gathered to
reach the value of the output, the transaction is invalid. Each donation
is a "pledge," which cannot be collected by the fundraiser until the
entire goal amount is raised.

+NONE+ :: This construction can be used to create a "bearer check" or
"blank check" of a specific amount. It commits to the input, but allows
the output locking script to be changed. Anyone can write their own
Bitcoin address into the output locking script and redeem the
transaction. However, the output value itself is locked by the
signature.

+NONE|ANYONECANPAY+ :: This construction can be used to build a "dust
collector." Users who have tiny UTXO in their wallets can't spend these
without the cost in fees exceeding the value of the dust. With this type
of signature, the dust UTXO can be donated for anyone to aggregate and
spend whenever they want.

((("Bitmask Sighash Modes")))There are some proposals to modify or
expand the +SIGHASH+ system. One such proposal is _Bitmask Sighash
Modes_ by Blockstream's Glenn Willen, as part of the Elements project.
This aims to create a flexible replacement for +SIGHASH+ types that
allows "arbitrary, miner-rewritable bitmasks of inputs and outputs" that
can express "more complex contractual precommitment schemes, such as
signed offers with change in a distributed asset exchange."

[NOTE]
====
You will not see +SIGHASH+ flags presented as an option in a user's
wallet application. With few exceptions, wallets construct P2PKH scripts
and sign with +SIGHASH_ALL+ flags. To use a different +SIGHASH+ flag,
you would have to write software to construct and sign transactions.
More importantly, +SIGHASH+ flags can be used by special-purpose bitcoin
applications that enable novel uses.
====

[[ecdsa_math]]
==== ECDSA Math

((("Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)")))As mentioned
previously, signatures are created by a mathematical function _F_~_sig_~
that produces a signature composed of two values _R_ and _S_. In this
section we look at the function _F_~_sig_~ in more detail.

((("public and private keys", "key pairs", "ephemeral")))The signature
algorithm first generates an _ephemeral_ (temporary) private public key
pair. This temporary key pair is used in the calculation of the _R_ and
_S_ values, after a transformation involving the signing private key and
the transaction hash.

The temporary key pair is based on a random number _k_, which is used as
the temporary private key. From _k_, we generate the corresponding
temporary public key _P_ (calculated as _P = k*G_, in the same way
bitcoin public keys are derived; see <<pubkey>>). The _R_ value of the
digital signature is then the x coordinate of the ephemeral public key
_P_.

From there, the algorithm calculates the _S_ value of the signature,
such that:

_S_ = __k__^-1^ (__Hash__(__m__) + __dA__ * __R__) _mod p_

where:

* _k_ is the ephemeral private key
* _R_ is the x coordinate of the ephemeral public key
* _dA_ is the signing private key
* _m_ is the transaction data
* _p_ is the prime order of the elliptic curve

Verification is the inverse of the signature generation function, using
the _R_, _S_ values and the public key to calculate a value _P_, which
is a point on the elliptic curve (the ephemeral public key used in
signature creation):

_P_ = __S__^-1^ * __Hash__(__m__) * _G_ + __S__^-1^ * _R_ * _Qa_

where:

- _R_ and _S_ are the signature values
- _Qa_ is Alice's public key
- _m_ is the transaction data that was signed
- _G_ is the elliptic curve generator point

If the x coordinate of the calculated point _P_ is equal to _R_, then
the verifier can conclude that the signature is valid.

Note that in verifying the signature, the private key is neither known
nor revealed.

[TIP]
====
ECDSA is necessarily a fairly complicated piece of math; a full
explanation is beyond the scope of this book. A number of great guides
online take you through it step by step: search for "ECDSA explained" or
try this one: http://bit.ly/2r0HhGB[].
====

==== The Importance of Randomness in Signatures

((("digital signatures", "randomness in")))As we saw in <<ecdsa_math>>,
the signature generation algorithm uses a random key _k_, as the basis
for an ephemeral private/public key pair. The value of _k_ is not
important, _as long as it is random_. If the same value _k_ is used to
produce two signatures on different messages (transactions), then the
signing _private key_ can be calculated by anyone. Reuse of the same
value for _k_ in a signature algorithm leads to exposure of the private
key!

[WARNING]
====
((("warnings and cautions", "digital signatures")))If the same value _k_
is used in the signing algorithm on two different transactions, the
private key can be calculated and exposed to the world!
====

This is not just a theoretical possibility. We have seen this issue lead
to exposure of private keys in a few different implementations of
transaction-signing algorithms in bitcoin. People have had funds stolen
because of inadvertent reuse of a _k_ value. The most common reason for
reuse of a _k_ value is an improperly initialized random-number
generator.

((("random numbers", "random number generation")))((("entropy", "random
number generation")))((("deterministic initialization")))To avoid this
vulnerability, the industry best practice is to not generate _k_ with a
random-number generator seeded with entropy, but instead to use a
deterministic-random process seeded with the transaction data itself.
This ensures that each transaction produces a different _k_. The
industry-standard algorithm for deterministic initialization of _k_ is
defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6979[RFC 6979], published by
the Internet Engineering Task Force.

If you are implementing an algorithm to sign transactions in bitcoin,
you _must_ use RFC 6979 or a similarly deterministic-random algorithm to
ensure you generate a different _k_ for each transaction.((("",
startref="Tdigsig06")))