BUIP 135: Use OKCoin Donation to fund DoubleSpend Proofs
Proposer: Andrew Stone (theZerg)
Submitted on: 2019-10-14
Status: draft


Recently Bitcoin Unlimited received approximately 9000USD from OKcoin to
encourage BCH technological development. We want to put this generous
funding to work straight away to benefit BCH and all its
implementations. Voting YES for this BUIP will devote this money towards
producing an implementation of DS (doublespend) proofs that:

  • Is enabled on Bitcoin Unlimited
  • Is MIT licensed and therefore available for adoption by any other
    full node implementation

In alignment with the BU goal to recognize and foster independent
development, we propose to first offer this money to and work with the
Flowee project. Flowee has implemented a GPLv3 licensed implementation
of doublespend proofs, and may be willing to extract this portion of the
Flowee code, offer it with an MIT license, and make some small proposed
modifications (see technical details below).

If an agreement with Flowee cannot be reached, the Developer will
evaluate proposals from any other applicants to find an alternative
solution to providing this functionality.

Doublespend Proof Technical Details

There are currently two specifications on double spend proofs and one
implementation within the larger BCH ecosystem.

Imaginary Username:

Flowee The Hub: https://gitlab.com/snippets/1883331

Initial Considerations

One key difference in the specifications is in how the DS proofs are
announced. Flowee specifies the DS proof identifier to be the double
SHA256 of the entire doublespend proof. Imaginary Username specifies the
DS proof identifier to be the SHA256 of the actual double spent

Flowee’s DS proof identifier is a probabilistically unique identifier,
similar to block and transaction identifiers. Imaginary Username’s
identifier has an additional property, which is that different DS proofs
that prove the same thing have the same hash. This is a very useful
property for DS proofs to have, since nodes are only interested in what
they prove, not the specifics of how (apart from verification).
Imaginary Username’s formulation allows nodes to ignore DS proof
messages based on the “INV” content, without actually downloading the

However, we can do slightly better. The purpose of the hashing both
specs propose is to create a probabilistically unique and short
identifier. However, the data being hashed – the outpoint – consists
of the double SHA256 hash of the prior input transaction and a 32bit
index. This data is already probabilistically unique, so there’s no need
to hash it again. Instead, let’s use the outpoint itself as the DS proof
identifier. This allows more efficient handling of DS proof and DS proof
INV messages (no hashing).

But probably most importantly, it allows recipients to easily determine
whether the DS proof is relevant to any transactions that the recipient
is interested in, when the INV is received. The recipient simply
compares the announced data to the inputs of all its transactions
looking for a match. If there is no match, a wallet does not need to
request the full DS proof.

Secondary Considerations

Both specifications place DS proof announcements into INV messages along
with any other object announcements. However, this means that the DS
proof will be queued with the same priority as other transactions –
potentially waiting for the processing of the very transactions it’s
trying to warn against.

Instead DS proof announcement handling should happen at higher priority
than transaction announcements. While it would be possible to scan INV
messages for DS proof announcements and extract them, this is
inefficient and inconvenient.

A better solution is to place DS proof announcements in a separate
message. These messages can then be isolated to a high priority handling
queue immediately upon receipt, analogous to block and block headers
message handling today.

Making a new message type is not hard. And the DS specification already
requires new messages to handle transmission of DS proofs, so including
another message type is a difference of degree, not kind.