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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 432361CF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:03:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.136])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B08DB84F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 15:03:39 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1554390230;
bh=vNS5zLSn1DN9WRb5l5JqWrlGUNngpLa4X29uKAIpiWM=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
From;
b=YupUnoHgEdvQ7HDYypbUoHmoYbAJhCS4m1oT+geexnLt8IcEpB8Qlxpn5S2Nw9pIJ
X0tLHF/Fdzxu+DbQrV3royCn1DlIvGUY8COI2IrCL9VYQEk+5nBG0qMOg9n5ByMVPA
Fl8hwUY8v83Yie+C5FB7Q/+ZQooMXCtSzoFtJB5c=
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ZxqlU561VPG4XszEcDYhWA28rvF5mjyAkLkG7qDxu-xIXXJ4iyCEl2jdikLHvgJcAOXwkUFNDLqom0zT25pICnuyzt235ODeazLVxuJTYA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <IAFPSZAn6TYt348fmmnPznQ_ApG7pa48eMjzTgrjuVAt6fS1tNieRxlcIXyTATy2vjZCUn4wVQcsyDlyb_3Ip46BstFRikB95-lKewAZBEE=@protonmail.com>
References: <IAFPSZAn6TYt348fmmnPznQ_ApG7pa48eMjzTgrjuVAt6fS1tNieRxlcIXyTATy2vjZCUn4wVQcsyDlyb_3Ip46BstFRikB95-lKewAZBEE=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URI_NOVOWEL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 15:42:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smart Contracts Unchained
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 15:03:54 -0000
Somebody pointed out this to me:
https://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html
I have updated the page accordingly.
One thing that seems not mentioned in bit-thereum is the "as long as everyb=
ody agrees" escape hatch, i.e. one branch which allows spending to anything=
(including a transaction that violates the letter of the contract) as long=
as all participants agree.
This is gives my newer mechanism the ability to "fix" buggy contracts if ev=
erybody involved can agree to the terms of a new contract, by simply abando=
ning the existing contract and spending to the new contract.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 9:55 AM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html
>
> Smart contracts have traditionally been implemented as part of the consen=
sus rules of some blokchain. Often this means creating a new blockchain, or=
at least a sidechain to an existing blockchain. This writeup proposes an a=
lternative method without launching a separate blockchain or sidechain, whi=
le achieving security similar to federated sidechains and additional benefi=
ts to privacy and smart-contract-patching.
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
