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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1VR0u0-00080C-65
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:26:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.83.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.41; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ee0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VR0tw-00044e-QL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:26:16 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id d17so3500192eek.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=Bl4SiEZvgqEShg8jY49LRnrfoaEf6fBJt7qmuzNKebY=;
b=AXHc5Yx1EBLH1apWx7Lx28v+ZS7Rzjz1FtYZQ19wDtRYk46oB3ksgi6C/v8FoTFs4p
pABYBGoRA8/F5I52VmFO32aHEJF1Akn7SeRniogyM/jvGzousAC5IsazRCMPMQ2lqCH2
yZhOS2/P+ODL9ZEx6+99mxkqQhr/HMz+sebTKQDOsEKugI3gn355STG6JFv/AB+cCWkk
fiLUcFsunk/V2OTGRTVg02u7rSmBPhsGFeCmIVQ40WZozlhXgtnIW3lFeZjP+Ma2hltA
+oApHjtSAbF5V/NLHF6VhW8Vt8p/OeXxQJki7MxruocwgoTzcryFL0G2pd+ri6xX/iOV
YGEA==
X-Received: by 10.14.183.130 with SMTP id q2mr46774670eem.5.1380637566414;
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k7sm13817798eeg.13.1969.12.31.16.00.00
(version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 5FD952E0B63; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:26:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:26:03 +0200
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:26:03 +0200
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <20131001142603.GA9208@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <CAKaEYhLvqT6nkbupEEgR1d9dMP4-pA7xQbBqPDbREiDDV7c0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2c70dbfc173749cf4198c591f19a7d33@astutium.com>
<CAH+ZByHs00+Cpx5bwybgV3G9=CBfHaHKg7AV9ytywKNAjFVM6g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T29T+thSeF-xVk+prfeO7ZJQbX=n=tAURqEKQsVtcBpQg@mail.gmail.com>
<20130929093708.GA16561@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<5248680C.60404@monetize.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5248680C.60404@monetize.io>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:131001:mark@monetize.io::8QhV/lfngts6G955:00ErJ
X-Hashcash: 1:20:131001:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::ZHe+NbfGJzbch
LfY:000000000000000000003MGc
X-Hashcash: 1:20:131001:adam@cypherspace.org::4JXLdQjBkWNFQoNv:00000000000000000
00000000000000000000000018jr
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
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: bitcointalk.org]
X-Headers-End: 1VR0tw-00044e-QL
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] homomorphic coin value (validatable but
encrypted) (Re: smart contracts -- possible use case? yes or no?)
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, 01 Oct 2013 14:26:16 -0000
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:49:00AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>This kind of thing - providing external audits of customer accounts
>without revealing private data - would be generally useful beyond
>taxation. If you have any solutions, I'd be interested to hear them
>(although bitcoin-dev is probably not the right place yet).
Thanks for providing the impetus to write down the current state, the
efficient version of which I only figured out a few days ago :)
I have been researching this for a few months on and off, because it seems
like an interesting construct in its own right, a different aspect of
payment privacy (eg for auditable but commercial sensistive information) but
also that other than its direct use it may enable some features that we have
not thought of yet.
I moved it to bitcointalk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.new#new
Its efficient finally (after many dead ends): approximately 2x cost of
current in terms of coin size and coin verification cost, however it also
gives some perf advantages back in a different way - necessary changes to
schnorr (EC version of Schnorr based proofs) allow n of n multiparty sigs,
or k of n multiparty sigs for the verification cost and signature size of
one pair of ECS signatures, for n > 2 its a space and efficiency improvement
over current bitcoin.
Adam
|
