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
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Y2lbQ-0003iR-0t
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:51:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.102])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Y2lbO-0001ZD-Qx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:51:40 +0000
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt14.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id sBLIpUTY074929;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:51:30 GMT
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id sBLIpRbg050806
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:51:29 GMT
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:51:26 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Message-ID: <20141221185126.GC18711@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CALqxMTFK_sxdFjVi0qAC0JMdXa=tVBBNp0VrveRUfwa3b1UYhw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFK_sxdFjVi0qAC0JMdXa=tVBBNp0VrveRUfwa3b1UYhw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 60481c26-8942-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAMUHFAXAgsB AmIbWlxeVVx7WmM7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmQm59 f158AE5ycgVOeHg+ bUZiXz5dXEBydBV/
RFNcHGkEeGZhPWQC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdiU+
EkooPzcudS5eJyJc XhwXIElaAXwGTHYP bREeFjIuGwgJSjs+
Kxs+L1MaAHNZDkU/ eUEsXVsEMhgUEQ1f ByMFCiJFOFQMQWIT
FwRdUwsZHnhlXC1Y AxYhPh5PBHRbXCYQ LU1ZSlQ1BjtBWTgA byxUWSkgFxlB
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Y2lbO-0001ZD-Qx
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] one-show signatures (Re: The relationship
between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles)
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: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:51:40 -0000
--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:10:47PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
> Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures
> (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And
> this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value
> choices).
>=20
> I wasnt really making a point other than an aside that it maybe is
> sort-of possible to do with math what you said was not possible where
> you said "This [preventing signing more than one message] is
> impossible to implement with math alone".
Introducing a bunch of clever ECDSA math doesn't change the fact that
the clever math isn't what is preventing double-spending, clever
economics is. Just like Bitcoin itself.
No sense getting people potentially confused by a bunch of complex
equations that aren't relevant to the more fundemental and much more
important principle that math alone can't prevent double-spending.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001bc21486eb6e305efc085daa6b9acd37305feba64327342e
--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=Aa0k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L--
|
