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
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
|
Return-Path: <raymo@riseup.net>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAEBC000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:58:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D4F400EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:58:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=riseup.net
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id pqupZ1foJddE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:58:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22C55400E5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:58:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GDDMd4FdczDrv6;
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
t=1624899517; bh=vOxtDrg4ry44QgOkxvbYVlaVQ337NOvtaqguNsKsTlI=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=sjj+zCfGMgozWK1ceoEndbl53sqyNG2H6zzVzi+wXHWFwLXeyOLjH/5h3wBfI0a9o
lMK81kfWEgMn+KNXoHt08ToTtnuqqd+S4p6JKi+jjI4LUDHnkq11UdJBsHIh2pl+o+
zp+OWHCdij5c5/a8o8wm6BVbZEhWg0im/0qUYYjQ=
X-Riseup-User-ID: 5E74EC8361DC6BA0C3E21007FF12D64DF3FF9E2ECBB2B09C3E736A016CDF1DE2
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GDDMd33g5z20b5;
Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:58:37 -0700
From: raymo@riseup.net
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <zs9XYSRzwoyhcfqXvyXG67bZqNTUt5_0DZwjrsyEKrvFbaxhX6jEAXBXPP01HnkxgApU8oGMXdOBVdgSHXBFrKAYLzCg_OmoIvO2EfsqJJg=@protonmail.com>
References: <bea8122aea550f1141170829aac252af@riseup.net>
<6leV9mViysrSOipJqrCM3wbqBOMO2gWI3BuEn0VKmaDf7GpawWyUIWLu-ddypMri7YeVmw94HNSaQYYp8fIkjZ0S3OtFTPQa6h9pkLprKDI=@protonmail.com>
<9c2cec326adee1f4d4152e2195da0e7b@riseup.net>
<ly7o0mtsw7cm0sY-R_TMlTzEDixdQkLhAJJP5-3zEthlJEO9IqUPtb_BkAT-fmltTr1juvZ8SYrQ73-ElSlOfGWlKRTX6FAV5mHQC6NbNt8=@protonmail.com>
<edee179d873eb9db551204561db17e90@riseup.net>
<A5gXRNtpLIWjF8Uq7CRLiwl9mb1eEY7IW7AQfQL_7uW9cXCKLn6FdOyYKBq1Dl1L-vgCBwFUgC873WyEEpS6K9F7ct4mdwRMKco01xsWhHg=@protonmail.com>
<c2e7b6336190c5dae6383abb284c335b@riseup.net>
<zs9XYSRzwoyhcfqXvyXG67bZqNTUt5_0DZwjrsyEKrvFbaxhX6jEAXBXPP01HnkxgApU8oGMXdOBVdgSHXBFrKAYLzCg_OmoIvO2EfsqJJg=@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <16131549ac084b58fc6cde894e43babe@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:35:09 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Boost Bitcoin circulation,
Million Transactions Per Second with stronger privacy
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:58:39 -0000
> What prevents the creditor from signing a transaction that is neither a valid MT nor a GT?
Please stop comparing Sabu and Lightning. Otherwise, it won't let you
true understanding of Sabu.
In Sabu protocol, only the issuer (the UTXO owner) can sign the
transaction and decide how much money goes to whom. The engaged UTXO(s)
belonged to issuer and the creditor never put UTXO in transaction, thus
never can sign the transaction because he has no ownership on the used
UTXOs.
As I already wrote in paper, the issuer creates and signs a transaction
and delivers it to creditor(s). If a creditor intends to send all or
part of his money to another person (AKA spending his money), he will
ask for a new signed transaction from issuer, in which a part of his
credit will transfer to another creditor.
The Sabu has nothing with Lightning. Sabu has a peer-to-peer network of
doc-watchers which maybe it was the cause you always compare it to
Lightning.
I am not presenting lightning neither condemning it.
I am presenting Sabu protocol.
Please let concentrate on how Sabu works or not works.
On 2021-06-28 15:28, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Raymo,
>
>> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>>
>> Why you get the signal “trust the Gazin wallet”?
>> Sabu is a protocol and the Gazin wallet will be an implementation of
>> that protocol. We will implement it in react-native language to support
>> both Android and iPhone. Of course it will be open source and GPL3.
>> Here is the repository and yet is empty :)
>> https://github.com/raymaot/Gazin
>>
>> I wonder why you do not look carefully into the proposal! IMHO the Sabu
>> will be far better than Lightning.
>> Can’t you see the fact that in Sabu you do not need open and close
>> channels ever? Can you imagine only this feature how dramatically
>> decrease the transactions cost and how increase the distribution of
>> nodes and improve privacy level? it makes every mobile wallet act like a
>> lightning network.
>> Did you note the fact that in Sabu protocol there is no routing? And the
>> only people knew about a transaction are issuer and creditor? No one
>> else won’t be aware of transactions and million transactions per second
>> can be sent and received and repeal dynamically without any footprint on
>> any DLT?
>>
>> The English is not my mother language and probably my paper is not a
>> smooth and easy to read paper, but these are not good excuse to not even
>> reading a technical paper carefully and before understanding it or at
>> least trying to understanding it start to complaining.
>
>
> What prevents the creditor from signing a transaction that is neither
> a valid MT nor a GT?
>
> Nothing.
>
> In Lightning, sure one side can sign a transaction that is not a valid
> commitment transaction, but good luck getting the other side to *also*
> sign the transaction; it will not.
> Thus, you need n-of-n.
>
> 1-of-1 is simply not secure, full stop, you need to redesign the whole
> thing to use *at least* 2-of-2.
> At which point you will have reinvented Lightning.
>
> Otherwise, you are simply trusting that the wallet is implemented
> correctly, and in particular, that any creditor will not simply insert
> code in your open-source software to sign invalid transactions.
>
> With a 1-of-1, any invalid-in-Sabu transaction can still be valid in
> the Bitcoin blockchain layer, thus the scheme is simply insecure.
>
> Features are meaningless without this kind of basic trust-minimization security.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
|
