blob: 611dee47f9df856ad32258266eebc08baf7dd84f (
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
|
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 <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1Y2kxy-00050m-AC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:10:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.54 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.54; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qa0-f54.google.com;
Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y2kxx-0006H4-D5
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:10:54 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i13so426441qae.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 10:10:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.22.196 with SMTP id o4mr30403810qab.85.1419185448014;
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 10:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Sender: adam.back@gmail.com
Received: by 10.96.189.10 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 10:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:10:47 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pI92Ld7gbbkCm2EbJy6i5Ic1ip4
Message-ID: <CALqxMTFK_sxdFjVi0qAC0JMdXa=tVBBNp0VrveRUfwa3b1UYhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(adam.back[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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: 1Y2kxx-0006H4-D5
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [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 18:10:54 -0000
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).
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".
Adam
On 21 December 2014 at 15:29, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
> There's no need to get into the specifics of crypto math so early; you
> can just as easily and only slightly less efficiently obtain the same
> result with a few extensions to the Bitcoin scripting system to verify
> ECDSA signatures directly.
|
