Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> writes: > On Jun 15, 2015 11:43 PM, "Rusty Russell" <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > >> Though Peter Todd's more general best-effort language might make more >> sense. It's not like you can hide an OP_RETURN transaction to make it >> look like something else, so that transaction not going to be >> distinguished by non-canonical ordering. > > What about commitments that don't use op_return (ie pay2contract > commitments)?
I have no idea what they are? :) > In any case, if the motivation is ordering in multi-party transactions > there should be ways to do it without any consequences for other > transaction types' privacy. For example you could have a deterministic > method that depends on a random seed all parties in the transaction > previously share. That way the ordering is deterministic for all parties > involved in the transaction (which can use whatever channel they're using > to send the parts to also send this random seed) while at the same time the > order looks random (or at least not cannonical in a recognisable way) to > everyone else. Yes, my plan B would be an informational bip with simple code, suggesting a way to permute a transaction based on some secret. No point everyone reinventing the wheel, badly. Cheers, Rusty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development