With OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS), signatures are verified in opposition to an specific message moderately than the transaction sighash.
This appears to permit the identical (sig, message) pair to be reused throughout totally different UTXOs, except one thing binds the message to a selected context.
Some discussions (e.g. by Jeremy Rubin https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2024/12/02/csfs-ctv-rekey-symmetry/) point out re-keying or laddering constructions to mitigate this.
My query is:
How precisely do CSFS laddering or re-keying schemes forestall cross-UTXO replay in follow?
What’s the binding mechanism — is it primarily based on chaining commitments, updating keys per step, or one thing else?
With OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS), signatures are verified in opposition to an specific message moderately than the transaction sighash.
This appears to permit the identical (sig, message) pair to be reused throughout totally different UTXOs, except one thing binds the message to a selected context.
Some discussions (e.g. by Jeremy Rubin https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2024/12/02/csfs-ctv-rekey-symmetry/) point out re-keying or laddering constructions to mitigate this.
My query is:
How precisely do CSFS laddering or re-keying schemes forestall cross-UTXO replay in follow?
What’s the binding mechanism — is it primarily based on chaining commitments, updating keys per step, or one thing else?
