summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/16/101e0bd1ee602fe74ff5db4b1f98873aba364e
blob: 096f0a1c1f3b06e2c880ea98419a817ccc1a2f95 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1S54OA-0002hg-U9
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:05:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-vx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1S54OA-0002tD-8R
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:05:54 +0000
Received: by vcbfl13 with SMTP id fl13so6903531vcb.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:05:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.91.193 with SMTP id cg1mr1899vdb.21.1331078748724; Tue, 06
	Mar 2012 16:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.107.69 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:05:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cne5An+SyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACsn0c=P1veYnmXe4E3qU0OC=Xr9Aw6Fy=6Zm0sUAaSBEDvpMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsn0cne5An+SyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:05:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSHsuhHOXXdAvgLZqF7ozLrzu-2wDikVxd0z6bPiCo+Hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1S54OA-0002tD-8R
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Proposal for a new opcode
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:05:55 -0000

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous
> transactions. This new opcode enables scripts to be given proof that
> the receiver can carry out or has carried out a previous transaction.
> I'm currently working on a paper that discusses using this opcode for
> anonymous transactions.

I believe I understand what the opcode does directly=E2=80=94 it just
validates an opaque signautre. I don't understand how it enables
anonymous transactions.

Can you spell this out for me?

In particular I don't see why it is not, from the perspective of the
blockchain, isomorphic to a hash locked transaction.   (This
equivalence is more obvious when you think about how lamport
signtures turn simple hashing into a one time signature).