Re: [Bitcoin-development] one-show signatures (Re: The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles)

2014-12-21 Thread paul snow
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:10:47PM +, Adam Back wrote: > > Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures > > (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And > > this would work with existing ECDSA addr

Re: [Bitcoin-development] one-show signatures (Re: The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles)

2014-12-21 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:10:47PM +, Adam Back wrote: > Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures > (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And > this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value > choices). > > I wasnt really m

[Bitcoin-development] one-show signatures (Re: The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles)

2014-12-21 Thread Adam Back
Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value choices). I wasnt really making a point other than an aside that it maybe is sort-of possible to