On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:42:33AM -0700, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly > define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I > would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof > of intent to pay…
Indeed. For instance, one of the ideas behind my Proofchains work is that you could hind all details of a smartcontract-whatchamacallit protocol behind single-use-seals in a consensus blockchain. Closing those seals, that is spending the appropriate txouts, represents things in the protocol which are absolutely unobservable to anyone without the data behind those hashes, an extreme version of the above. Incidentally, some patent prior-art exposure: https://github.com/proofchains/python-proofchains :) -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000a203bd78c8536399f67275064107def6c7afea29c4e3a7b
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
