blob: 74c69be8ff72ab35a6fdccbd7d6a46453a4705ce (
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <joliver@airmail.cc>) id 1Y8RvW-0007Lm-G1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of airmail.cc
designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender)
client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=joliver@airmail.cc;
helo=cock.li;
Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y8RvV-00031i-5v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:47 +0000
From: joliver@airmail.cc
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck>
<20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org>
<20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <57e9838d0b92bd3226b10c6cf2651914@airmail.cc>
X-Sender: joliver@airmail.cc
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
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_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Y8RvV-00031i-5v
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:54 -0000
On 2014-12-22 00:11, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
> The classic "proof-of-publication" system is to embed opaque data (as
> far as bitcoin miners are concerned) in transactions using OP_RETURN.
> A significance of establishing "proof-of-publication" as a universal
> underlying primitive is that this OP_RETURN trick is then sufficient
> for anything you might want. But part of what Bitcoin provides is
> indexing and validation/exclusion, and this is important for
> supporting efficient anti-replay proofs. Proof-of-(non)-publication
> alone isn't sufficient for this.
Are we going to get an answer to this or Adam Back's critique? Doesn't
sound like this so-called "proof-of-publication" actually works
according to the experts. Is it an concept anyone but Peter Todd
actually believes in?
|
