Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cne5An+SyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACsn0c=P1veYnmXe4E3qU0OC=Xr9Aw6Fy=6Zm0sUAaSBEDvpMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsn0cne5An+SyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:05:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSHsuhHOXXdAvgLZqF7ozLrzu-2wDikVxd0z6bPiCo+Hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Proposal for a new opcode
Precedence: list

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous
> transactions. This new opcode enables scripts to be given proof that
> the receiver can carry out or has carried out a previous transaction.
> I'm currently working on a paper that discusses using this opcode for
> anonymous transactions.

I believe I understand what the opcode does directly=E2=80=94 it just
validates an opaque signautre. I don't understand how it enables
anonymous transactions.

Can you spell this out for me?

In particular I don't see why it is not, from the perspective of the
blockchain, isomorphic to a hash locked transaction.   (This
equivalence is more obvious when you think about how lamport
signtures turn simple hashing into a one time signature).