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…


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:




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to