> The OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines: > > https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy
Similar indeed, thank you for the link. 2016-08-09 0:53 GMT+03:00 Peter Todd <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:41:27PM +0000, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Wouldn't you lose the ability to assume transactions in the blockchain are > > verified as valid, since miners can't see the details of what is being > > spent and how? I feel like this ability is bitcoin's greatest asset, and by > > removing it you're creating an altcoin different enough to not be connected > > to/supported by the main bitcoin project. > > The fact that miners verify transactions is just an optimisation: > > https://petertodd.org/2013/disentangling-crypto-coin-mining > > Preventing double-spending however is a fundemental requirement of Bitcoin, > and > this proposal does prevent double-spending perfectly well (although there may > be better ways to do it). > > The OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines: > > https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
