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
|
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 70E671B7F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:07:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.133])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 764757C3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 07:07:10 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1554361638;
bh=MIhZ+4HL6PkOg/lHi3ZStKAmvEUqURsB368LDbXdhDU=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=cI+Y5FFZRjyWk+a9EV4CL128RWAzXuz3GoyIaGAE2OOIRRBC3H0cBPgtCxVun0vmP
TV++CfqLnN9ocCtKj2VUZ/ik3zbPDqSfsDGbADIbssGvD+o7Xxd49unorZ8c9ovOyo
gzcM7N2Zq/run8CwfHZoALQhcpN7/vK0utAq85sA=
To: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Yz-vUCuXGAD-evAyVSQDlL-8GzfDE-hDvGza7dgTY39gdklIZbFIv6XDfoBHSz96bwBNLCtAtCsXKvX7n-9oRqSgIVBD17y57Vvu8tzURXw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <77b8f255-8f70-431e-839c-b99361d1dac7@gmail.com>
References: <IAFPSZAn6TYt348fmmnPznQ_ApG7pa48eMjzTgrjuVAt6fS1tNieRxlcIXyTATy2vjZCUn4wVQcsyDlyb_3Ip46BstFRikB95-lKewAZBEE=@protonmail.com>
<77b8f255-8f70-431e-839c-b99361d1dac7@gmail.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=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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 10:10:24 +0000
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 07:07:21 -0000
Good morning Ariel,
> However, consider the situation where a group of participants are playing=
poker. One participant loses all their funds and decides to present to the=
escrow the contract+an old contract state+a signed message following the c=
ontract rules (eg. an independently signed cashing out message). How would =
the escrow know that the contract state is old and the operation is disallo=
wed, without using a consensus mechanism like a blockchain?
One might point to the various channel mechanisms (Poon-Dryja, Decker-Watte=
nhofer, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun) as counterarguments.
Though they require a blockchain as backing, old states are invalidated (Po=
on-Dryja) or replaceable (Decker-*), without necessarily requiring a blockc=
hain to keep track of all the states.
Suppose our purported smart contract platform supports some kind of covenan=
t system.
This means, that it is possible to make a branch of the contract require th=
at the fund go to a specific address template in the transaction that spend=
s it.
Suppose we use this mechanism to require that the Bitcoin-level transaction=
pay again to a contract in the same contract platform.
It then becomes possible to make a covenant that requires spending the tran=
saction to the same covenant.
This can allow us to enforce creating an offchain sequence of transactions =
T1...Tn, such that T2 spends T1, T3 spends T2, etc.
Then the final transaction Tn completes the sequence and pays out according=
to the rules of Poker, or whatever.
This sequence is anchored on an onchain transaction T0 which enters the fun=
ds into the smart contract.
The smart contract platform just signs "blindly" without particularly carin=
g whether the signature went onchain, or even whether the UTXO being spent =
exists onchain --- all it cares, is that the smart contract can be given wi=
tnesses correctly.
Now upon reaching Tn, the winner(s) can just publish the sequence of transa=
ctions T1...Tn.
Alternately, they can present the sequence of transactions T1...Tn to all p=
articipants, and offer to give back part of the money allocated to fees for=
all the transactions T1...Tn in exchange for a single transaction that sho=
rtcuts all of that and spends to however Tn splits out.
Basically, consider that the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun mechanism starts with=
a mechanism very much like the above (a sequence of update transactions) a=
nd then does some optimizations to allow the final transaction Tn to spend =
any transaction Ti where i < n.
But the basic concept that the sequence is at all possible, and can be kept=
offchain, implies this state does not require to be stored onchain at all.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
