Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.100 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.100; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 00:52:20 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Message-ID: <20141221055220.GB8255@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck>
	<20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAOG=w-vrHPY1aCNndmoW9QyCh9XnWyv8uZn2PyjZ6rNg2MoSSw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-vrHPY1aCNndmoW9QyCh9XnWyv8uZn2PyjZ6rNg2MoSSw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The relationship between
 Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles
Precedence: list


--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > 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 not sufficient to
> > implement other uses of proof-of-publication such as decentralized
> > exchange=B3.
> >
>=20
> 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 today with vanilla bitcoin using SIGHASH_SINGLE if only
> the protocol supported multiple validated assets (which it could, but
> doesn't). Rather straightforward further extensions to the protocol would
> enable market participants to use a wider class of orders, as well as
> enable the buyer rather than the seller to dictate order sizes via partial
> redemption, as we demonstrate in our Freimarkets paper.

Do you realise that all those Freimarket's uses are either based on
proof-of-publication, or insecure due to sybil attacks?

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000017d70ee98f4cee509d95c4f31d5b998bae6deb09df1088fc

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=+it6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM--