On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Mike Koss m...@coinlab.com wrote:
I've implemented an alternative to the BIP 32 proposal. I wanted a system
based on a hierarchical string representation (rather than hierarchy of
After doing more thinking, what about letting a spend sign more information
associated with the transaction, such as a transaction ID provided by the
merchant? This seems to solve a lot of the problems being put forward, with
much less complexity.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Analysis, comments, constructive criticism, etc welcome for the following:
==Background==
At present, an attacker can harm a pool by intentionally NOT submitting shares
that are also valid blocks. All pools are vulnerable to this
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd w...@uchicago.edu wrote:
Dear all,
I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous
transactions. This new opcode enables scripts to be given proof that
the receiver
OP_CHECKEXPSIG we can instead pass the script that gives the nth note
value proof that the notes {1,...n-1} were turned in and are distinct.
This enables a coupling of the strong double spend protection of
Bitcoin with traditional digital cash's strong anonymity.
Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
5 matches
Mail list logo
