Error with new secp256k1-tr version

[sadeghte]

It seams this sample code not working with the current frost secp256k1-tr curve.
This is the log for me:

Preparing transaction:
Outpoint amount 21348 sats
add output to tb1p7cz7mg7tttt0e7ej6xeeyuw0x6faf87yqqvfp05x82wr7wv73m9ss7xwfg, amount 1000 sats
change to group address tb1p7cz7mg7tttt0e7ej6xeeyuw0x6faf87yqqvfp05x82wr7wv73m9ss7xwfg, amount 20048 sats
Fee 300 sats
thread 'main' panicked at src/main.rs:374:57:
called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: InvalidSignature
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

[zebra-lucky]

I'm sorry, maybe need to archive this project. This is testing code and it works with old code ZcashFoundation/frost#584

But after that code significantly changed in the ZcashFoundation/frost#730

You should look at current code to possibly modify this project.

[zargarzadehm]

Hey, I attempted to modify the project and update it based on the latest documents provided by ZcashFoundation. However, I’m still encountering the following error. On the positive side, I was fortunate enough to sign a transaction using the source code from this repository using frost-secp256k1-tr with an older commit from your repository.

frost-secp256k1-tr = { git = "https://github.com/zebra-lucky/frost", rev = "c63a3ca699ad67a270f499ce350a6311c57d20c4" }

My Error:

sendrawtransaction RPC error: {\”code\”:-26,\”message\”:\”mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed (Invalid Schnorr signature)\”}

I’ve pushed my latest code to GitHub: https://github.com/zargarzadehm/frost_taproot_tx. I’d be really happy if you could take some time to debug my code.

[zebra-lucky]

Hi! Possibly you should use:

// Same as [`sign()`], but using a Taproot tweak as specified in BIP-341.      
pub fn sign_with_tweak(                                                         

// Same as [`aggregate()`], but using a Taproot tweak as specified in BIP-341. 
pub fn aggregate_with_tweak(                                                    

[zebra-lucky]

Look at:
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/upgrades/taproot/
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/script/p2tr/
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki

[zargarzadehm]

Hi! Possibly you should use:

// Same as [`sign()`], but using a Taproot tweak as specified in BIP-341.      
pub fn sign_with_tweak(                                                         

// Same as [`aggregate()`], but using a Taproot tweak as specified in BIP-341. 
pub fn aggregate_with_tweak(                                                    

Actually I tested with that tweaked version but there was the same error, should i convert my public key to tweaked or no ? And what is use case of merkle tree argument should I set any thing or it can be None?

[zebra-lucky]

Actually I tested with that tweaked version but there was the same error, should i convert my public key to tweaked or no ? And what is use case of merkle tree argument should I set any thing or it can be None?

I'm currently not in the semantic of current code use,
maybe tests/tweaking_tests.rs from secp256k1-tr can help.

Output address to P2TR must be from ScriptPubKey in the form:
OP_1 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 [tweaked public key].

[zebra-lucky]

Output address to P2TR must be from ScriptPubKey in the form: OP_1 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 [tweaked public key].

Then you can spend with [withness] schnorr signature using sign_with_tweak, aggregate_with_tweak

[zebra-lucky]

Additionally look at SigMsg construction:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#signature-validation-rules

It has some differences from SegWit BIP-143:

• The way and order of serialization is changed
• The signature message commits to the scriptPubKey of the spent output and if the SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY flag is not set, the message commits to the scriptPubKeys of all outputs spent by the transaction
• ...

[zebra-lucky]

And what is use case of merkle tree argument should I set any thing or it can be None?

For Key Path Spend it is not used. Maybe None or empty bytes. I'm sorry.
I'm not in the current semantic of the crate.

[zargarzadehm]

Additionally look at SigMsg construction: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#signature-validation-rules

It has some differences from SegWit BIP-143:

• The way and order of serialization is changed
• The signature message commits to the scriptPubKey of the spent output and if the SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY flag is not set, the message commits to the scriptPubKeys of all outputs spent by the transaction
• ...

Thanks for your help, I will try this solution and let you know about result! 🙏