1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC64C0029
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 18:20:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9785821DF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 18:20:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org B9785821DF
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id W1K_YIdH7wDH
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 18:20:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org E984B8212D
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (smtpauth.rollernet.us
[IPv6:2607:fe70:0:3::d])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E984B8212D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 18:20:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAB328B483D;
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 11:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.rollernet.us (webmail.rollernet.us
[IPv6:2607:fe70:0:14::a])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA;
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 11:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 08:20:33 -1000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Burak Keceli <burak@buraks.blog>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.10
Message-ID: <99b61e0f4a2d488674ebdd1ef48eb347@dtrt.org>
X-Sender: dave@dtrt.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Rollernet-Abuse: Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report. Abuse policy:
http://www.rollernet.us/policy
X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 3790.6480ca71.4d3bf.0
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ark: An Alternative Privacy-preserving Second
Layer Solution
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 18:20:37 -0000
On 2023-06-07 03:30, Burak Keceli wrote:
> If the service provider double-spends a transaction that enforces a
> one-time signature where Bob is the vendor, Bob can forge the service
> provider’s signature from the 2-of-2 and can immediately claim his
> previously-spent vTXO(s).
Hi Burak,
I'm confused. Bob owns some bitcoins that are timelocked against
immediate withdrawal, but where he can spend immediately with the
cooperation of service provider Sally. Bob transfers some bitcoins to
Sally contingent on her spending an equal amount of bitcoins (minus a
fee) to Carol. You already have a mechanism to enforce this contingency
(tx outpoints), so if Carol doesn't receive the bitcoins from Sally,
then Sally also doesn't receive the bitcoins from Bob. In other words,
you already have atomicity for a single transfer.
Are you describing the effect over multiple transfers? For example, Bob
previously transferred bitcoins to Sally and she paid users X, Y, and Z
in transactions that are now confirmed onchain, although she hasn't yet
swept Bob's funds. Now when Sally double spends the payment to Carol,
Bob can not only reclaim the funds he gave Sally to pay to Carol (which
was guaranteed by the atomicity), he can also reclaim the unswept funds
he gave Sally to pay X, Y, and Z.
If so, I don't think that works. In a private protocol, Carol can't be
sure that Bob and Sally are separate individuals. If they're the same
entity, then any forfeit that Sally needs to pay Bob is just an internal
transfer, not a penalty.
I'd appreciate any clarification you can offer. Thanks!,
-Dave
|
