Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of airmail.cc
	designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=joliver@airmail.cc;
	helo=cock.li; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:47 +0000
From: joliver@airmail.cc
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck>
	<20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org>
	<20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <57e9838d0b92bd3226b10c6cf2651914@airmail.cc>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The relationship between
 Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles
Precedence: list

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" as a universal
> underlying primitive is that this OP_RETURN trick is then sufficient
> for anything you might want. But part of what Bitcoin provides is
> indexing and validation/exclusion, and this is important for
> supporting efficient anti-replay proofs. Proof-of-(non)-publication
> alone isn't sufficient for this.

Are we going to get an answer to this or Adam Back's critique? Doesn't 
sound like this so-called "proof-of-publication" actually works 
according to the experts. Is it an concept anyone but Peter Todd 
actually believes in?