On 2014-12-22 00:11, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
> The classic "proof-of-publication" system is to embed opaque data (as
> far as bitcoin miners are concerned) in transactions using OP_RETURN.
> A significance of establishing "proof-of-publication
(Again nothing new to say here, just putting my notes in this
discussion, where I started with an earlier discussion that Peter
wrote up with a subject of "disentangling" blockchain design).
In the discussion last year that started the analysis of
"disentangling" blockchain design I had broken out
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
Andrew Miller asked me to publish the following to the mailing list on his
behalf: (https://twitter.com/socrates1024/status/546819355565391872)
One of the main points in this note is that you can use a
"proof-of-publication" system to im
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:25:36PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> So let's go through an example to see in which ways
>> non-proof-of-publication orders are "insecure".
>>
>> Alice the seller wants to sell 1 unit of A for 100 units of B.
>> Bob is
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:25:36PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> So let's go through an example to see in which ways
> non-proof-of-publication orders are "insecure".
>
> Alice the seller wants to sell 1 unit of A for 100 units of B.
> Bob is willing to pay up to 200 Bs for 1 A.
>
> Let's assume a
I could play the game where I say, "You don't understand," and, like you,
not address any of your points.
First, there is no dependence on implementation in my arguments. If a
system can prevent replay by some set of rules, it necessarily must be able
to answer the question if a message is publis
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:11:32PM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > Right, so Freimarkets is deliberately insecure.
> >
>
> Please define your terms, particularly what your security requirements are
> here. In the architecture we created u
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:01:37AM +, Adam Back wrote:
> On 20 December 2014 at 14:48, Peter Todd wrote:
> > We need the following primitives operating on message m, pubkey p, and a
> > valid signature sig1 for m, p:
> >
> > AntiReplaySign(m, p, sig1) -> sig2
> > VerifyAntiReplaySig(m,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 07:49:17AM -0600, paul snow wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2014 8:49 AM, "Peter Todd" wrote:
> >
> > However the converse is not possible: anti-replay cannot be used to
> implement proof-of-publication. Knowing that no conflicting message exists
> says nothing about who be in posessio
On Dec 20, 2014 8:49 AM, "Peter Todd" wrote:
>
> However the converse is not possible: anti-replay cannot be used to
implement proof-of-publication. Knowing that no conflicting message exists
says nothing about who be in posession of that message, or indeed, any
message at all. Thus anti-replay is
st
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> I think you are trying to say something more specific / limited than that,
>> and I suggest you adjust your wording accordingly. Decentralized exchange
>> would be possible
On 20 December 2014 at 14:48, Peter Todd wrote:
> We need the following primitives operating on message m, pubkey p, and a
> valid signature sig1 for m, p:
>
> AntiReplaySign(m, p, sig1) -> sig2
> VerifyAntiReplaySig(m, p, sig2) -> True or False
>
> Additionally once AntiReplaySign() has b
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 02:18:18PM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Care to expand?
>
> Freimarkets does not require proof of publication of bids or asks, which
> are distributed out of band from the block chain until a match is made. It
> does not guarantee ordering of market transactions. Indeed
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > However the converse is not possible: anti-replay cannot be used to
> > implement proof-of-publication. Knowing that no conflicting message
> > exists says nothing about w
14 matches
Mail list logo
