Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10585102F for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:20:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A496161 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 9so71975843iom.1 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:20:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UXgPcrdLMVQVrWfobHEFQyyOru7j8r1ZyaQvJ6toCCw=; b=XmA+8rf3H9zKcgKJbjYoU+rb/wXH1OXG9WWdlMPM/62BMzv62/JgPexHE7fz3eCfYQ 6yMsXi2SUcuqLtTnGL6QgbU8GOAiMtnY6cuLBsIpletLKuhwoyWVKd4g0qOvYImtsJXe wEndsQ2jc2s09qmObDnZif6Au/OCMXJ8qQSx1lomCd7V6TLkqX9l0lr100Rmgbq+SQrB ag56tY5ivRkTEwVWFaYEDxkZV9kgtcIcxJMwSXn/s0mv0wVz+0kRQhRWwDL9Mb3iZKyJ 3qeQP2XGhZWsfgSyNqteQ4Vf8NJMnaq18kJFqaTEiFrYb77QOtTF2d95DXktHp4k/sF/ d35g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UXgPcrdLMVQVrWfobHEFQyyOru7j8r1ZyaQvJ6toCCw=; b=fvzngvXySGJwY1gJGulfnQCED4FlYDqE9FzoiZSwmU6kutXdxgyd3cj6ZEyF1z2ih0 Ux5jCWEPn/cwQyiZhVhw2IAPPwdMv2rTzYqsPbTJdgMa4LoRQkr60WP7FD4lmaPrljd4 iFMnIF7ixYXqRZ//GRZFCO2ChLUQfHyt+3aFzOxZpjEzfy037Cfg3z6lf3E6wh/J5EAU xPUpfQ+gXJ3hRc+foASBxRxc3UCsrC0pjr58sXtiAJmiMf1hHc1YyOfoXwSKYWhAjotU R/azRVTTV94pTkXl3VYS9Pi6tDW6pWLrjN9p2Y9xBrvMDc4zxbUuIdjMK8eTytd4L77Y cijg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR8q48BT077cbwsmL41ulS4smyBu9DXhyMfUWOKsroBJkea5ShLyQ6knV9kxagxRboo5SvuC1xnNTPeyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.17.24 with SMTP id z24mr24039741ioi.78.1455229234048; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.48.15 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.48.15 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:20:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:20:33 +0000 Message-ID: From: Thomas Kerin To: Tier Nolan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113edb1c8ff51d052b85f5bb X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_REMOTE_IMAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 01:49:02 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP CPRKV: Check private key verify X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:20:35 -0000 --001a113edb1c8ff51d052b85f5bb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I wonder if this is possible as a soft fork without using segwit? Increasing the sigop count for a NOP would be a hard fork, but such a change would be fine with a new segwit version. It might require specific support in the altcoin, which might be troublesome.. On 11 Feb 2016 20:05, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There was some discussion on the bitcointalk forums about using CLTV for > cross chain transfers. > > Many altcoins don't support CLTV, so transfers to those coins cannot be > made secure. > > I created a protocol. It uses on cut and choose to allow commitments to > publish private keys, but it is clunky and not entirely secure. > > I created a BIP draft for an opcode which would allow outputs to be locked > unless a private key was published that matches a given public key. > > https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/cpkv/bip-cprkv.mediawiki > This email has been sent from a > virus-free computer protected by Avast. > www.avast.com > <#-1229186329_DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a113edb1c8ff51d052b85f5bb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I wonder if this is possible as a soft fork without using se= gwit? Increasing the sigop count for a NOP would be a hard fork, but such a= change would be fine with a new segwit version. It might require specific = support in the altcoin, which might be troublesome..

On 11 Feb 2016 20:05, "Tier Nolan via bitco= in-dev" <b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
There = was some discussion on the bitcointalk forums about using CLTV for cross ch= ain transfers.

Many altcoins don't support CLTV, so transf= ers to those coins cannot be made secure.=C2=A0

I created a p= rotocol.=C2=A0 It uses on cut and choose to allow commitments to publish pr= ivate keys, but it is clunky and not entirely secure.

I = created a BIP draft for an opcode which would allow outputs to be locked un= less a private key was published that matches a given public key.
This email has been = sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avas= t.com

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113edb1c8ff51d052b85f5bb--