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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Y2qbH-0005fM-Ai
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:11:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.108 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.108; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148108.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148108.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.108])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Y2qbF-0007bk-ER for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:11:51 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id sBM0Ben1008621;
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:11:40 GMT
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id sBM0BbEI026263
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:11:39 GMT
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:11:37 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck>
<20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 1a54f6f9-896f-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAAUHFAXAgsB AmIbW1ReUVx7XWM7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmQm58 BmxMJ2BydQNEfn0+ ZEVjWnAVXRV/cRB7
FEdJHWQAM3phaTUb TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDIj4x DwoPGTwzHEoDXCUy
N1QsJ0IDEUsXUA0K K1wmVxcfPVoqFwda HkpEHC5eIREIQSZj
JAVGXAskHSVZSDYU JQchKRtFGVQI
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Y2qbF-0007bk-ER
Cc: Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.umd.edu>
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: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:11:51 -0000
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
Andrew Miller asked me to publish the following to the mailing list on his
behalf: (https://twitter.com/socrates1024/status/546819355565391872)
One of the main points in this note is that you can use a
"proof-of-publication" system to implement an "anti-replay" system.
However this isn't true - at least not given the description of
proof-of-(non)-publication in 2) and the definition of "anti-replay"
given here.
In 2), proof-of-*non*-publication allows you to prove that *some
specific message* has never been published. You can imagine having a
function ProveNotPublished(m), which proves "message m was not
published."
However, the anti-replay mechanism is about proving that *no* message
satisfying some property has been published. Hence
VerifyAntiReplaySig(m, p, s) checks that "for all possible messages m'
(distinct from m), AntiReplaySign(m', p) has not been called."
This isn't *just* splitting hairs, this distinction is actually
relevant for analyzing several cryptocurrency designs. You can imagine
extending the definition of proof-of-(non)-publication to take in some
predicate P, so that you can prove "no message m such that P(m) holds
has ever been published." However, to do this efficiently requires
anticipating some classes of P and building some appropriate indices.
- As a baseline, as long as you have the whole blockchain available,
you can scan through the entire blockchain and evaluate P for every
transaction, but this is pretty inefficient.
- Other tradeoffs are available if you are willing to trust some
(quora of) servers to maintain indices for you
- Bitcoin's UTXO set effectively supports a predicate for each txout,
where P(x) =3D "x is a valid tranasction that spends <txout>"
- Ethereum contracts, in a sense, allow for general purpose contracts
to 'build-your-own" index. On the other hand its key-value store
doesn't support range queries, so it's not necessarily "universal" or
as expressive as SQL, for example.
But the point isn't to argue about design choices and tradeoffs in
this thread. The main point I want to make is:
*Indexes and Validation Matter!*
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.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000a7b40becd0babbd64ec49b8b34823fb4f4b081c95188b66
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=dCDQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--
|
