Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04BEC002F for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:53:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99A1403F8 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:53:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6tr8gC8MZMKp for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:53:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62E8B40376 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:53:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id s13so30224011ejy.3 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 03:53:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RUGduDTh4vYknQujT0etjzmePg8XfTzHNCzgEYoTs6Q=; b=V3166X8F3PqvCh9RVtGRH09wEZh7KLuCL5ZPqaauNK/II6nLMZKRr2U/RPoQrueAqm C285l+B1uIxDkm0/2KxT3sOWxSrWTfsBMYZPWHbkMOOTgkGXpFBINv/iXUALCYAqekAe VffkPiiQBOyIP6srAQqxyewszbZoqPpebG8f2fKJwGFUMvXXh7lqxdybbsClVrl9rWCL 6rg7oqApwHft48OFw4kEuaJ7JW0Q52Iua7iGPf1RmBoF4SLsCxlPEWlFIvGgTMSAgzAO cbuOKH4R59RNjgPMkY6ntmxTrFI5EAAL1fpMZFdYw71c+h0po484mxaIjLy0FRbxlQYc Nw7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=RUGduDTh4vYknQujT0etjzmePg8XfTzHNCzgEYoTs6Q=; b=SUFlSjDVsXvxdTarIllASuP+WG3q9qkoqcRJP5wCgdiBNJnSRdbu2AKSKNHkJ0tRud Mgr+D/Lqf41Yn/GiQWW8m6AYG6OF9VkVp+sDCMHa+Ui9O+pjok18Gilzu3T9R1v0OV9F GagV7ZWqutG821omJkJPIwX4Qqp9rSIa7/S1CHwa+Ohuojt5Mde04Lzdoawhq0nD+58Z cdK6A8OI18+qA+tgwBCCfEd3IozTp/+u7Y/Lo5WvCL6qzQEiAx+7Lp6Y198yRmIE/QJa 7QpjfTgQRRG51eGgIbH7HGOGbU1X32l6vAB/ShG3JUA16Bs8ICqL1qSih2HwNJJMlIww /pLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533H88a+emqtpRCmjPjwr79wzIrzUhi50MsK4+1TJGj33q0sER89 myl3lUpcwCc5genF3lZCIlOMrsRoSRDRqW80A4w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4tJNbbZjiTr68jiuK+5/LKg/segkagONM/kzXPYfJ4LYb5RlnDT1MWz/Tv2crpbKV1SZapZDUv107AhspaLg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c441:: with SMTP id ck1mr15658151ejb.257.1643111626438; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 03:53:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 05:53:36 -0600 Message-ID: To: AdamISZ , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d1fc3705d666bc93" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:07:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] PathCoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:53:50 -0000 --000000000000d1fc3705d666bc93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" There was a protocol someone mentioned a while back called Sabu that had the same goals. As i recall, it had some pretty promising constructs, but would have a critical vulnerability that could be exploited by miners. This is the write up: https://raymo-49157.medium.com/time-to-boost-bitcoin-circulation-million-transactions-per-second-and-privacy-1eef8568d180 Perhaps some of the techniques there could be combined with your ideas to get closer to a solution. On Mon, Jan 24, 2022, 08:51 AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello list, > > I took the time to write up this rather out-there idea: > > Imagine you wanted to send a coin just like email, i.e. just transfer data > to the counterparty. > > Clearly this is in general entirely impossible; but with what restrictions > and assumptions could you create a toy version of it? > > See this gist for a detailed build up of the idea: > > https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/b462838cbc8cc06aae0c15610502e4da > > Basically: using signature adaptors and CTV or a similar covenant, you > could create a fully trustless transfer of control of a utxo from one party > to another with no interaction with the rest of the group, at the time of > transfer (modulo of course lots and lots of one-time setup). > > The limitations are extreme and as you'd imagine. In the gist I feel like > I got round one of them, but not the others. > > (I very briefly mention comparison to e.g. statechains or payment pools; > they are making other tradeoffs against the 'digital cash' type of goal. > There is no claim that this 'pathcoin' idea is even viable yet, let alone > better than those ideas). > > Publishing this because I feel like it's the kind of thing imaginative > minds like the ones here, may be able to develop further. Possibly! > > > waxwing / AdamISZ > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000d1fc3705d666bc93 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There was a protocol someone mentioned a while back calle= d Sabu that had the same goals. As i recall, it had some pretty promising c= onstructs, but would have a critical vulnerability that could be exploited = by miners. This is the write up:


=
Perhaps some of the techniques there could be combined wi= th your ideas to get closer to a solution.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022, 08:51= AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hello list,

I took the time to write up this rather out-there idea:

Imagine you wanted to send a coin just like email, i.e. just transfer data = to the counterparty.

Clearly this is in general entirely impossible; but with what restrictions = and assumptions could you create a toy version of it?

See this gist for a detailed build up of the idea:

https://gist.github.com/A= damISZ/b462838cbc8cc06aae0c15610502e4da

Basically: using signature adaptors and CTV or a similar covenant, you coul= d create a fully trustless transfer of control of a utxo from one party to = another with no interaction with the rest of the group, at the time of tran= sfer (modulo of course lots and lots of one-time setup).

The limitations are extreme and as you'd imagine. In the gist I feel li= ke I got round one of them, but not the others.

(I very briefly mention comparison to e.g. statechains or payment pools; th= ey are making other tradeoffs against the 'digital cash' type of go= al. There is no claim that this 'pathcoin' idea is even viable yet,= let alone better than those ideas).

Publishing this because I feel like it's the kind of thing imaginative = minds like the ones here, may be able to develop further. Possibly!


waxwing / AdamISZ
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000d1fc3705d666bc93--