On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum <ka...@rosenbaum.se> wrote:
> > What do you gain by making PoPs actually valid transactions? You could > for > > example change the signature hashing algorithm (prepend a constant > string, > > or add a second hashing step) for signing, rendering the signatures in a > PoP > > unusable for actual transaction, while still committing to the same > actual > > transaction. That would also remove the need for the OP_RETURN to catch > > fees. > > The idea is to simplify implementation. Existing software can be used > as is to sign and validate PoPs. But I do agree that it would be a > cleaner specification if we would make the PoP invalid as a > transaction. I'm open to changes here. I do like the idea to prepend a > constant string. But that would require changes in transaction signing > and validation code, wouldn't it? > Yes, of course. An alternative is adding a 21M BTC output at the end, or bitflipping the txin prevout hashes, or another reversible transformation on the transaction data that is guaranteed to invalidate it. I think that the risk of asking people to sign something that is not an actual transaction, but could be used as one, is very scary. > > Also, I would call it "proof of transaction intent", as it's a > commitment to > > a transaction and proof of its validity, but not a proof that an actual > > transaction took place, nor a means to prevent it from being double > spent. > > > Naming is hard. I think a simpler name that explains what its main > purpose is (prove that you paid for something) is better than a name > that exactly tries to explain what it is. "Proof of Payment" indeed does make me think it's something that proves you paid. But as described, that is not what a PoP does. It proves the ability to create a particular transaction, and committing to it. There is no actual payment involved (plus, payment makes me think you're talking about BIP70 payments, not simple Bitcoin transactions). > "Proof of transaction > intent" does not help me understand what this is about. But I would > like to see more name suggestions. The name does not prevent people > from using it for other purposes, ie internet over telephone network. > I don't understand why something like "Proof of Transaction Intent" would be incompatible with internet over telephone network either... -- Pieter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
