From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2ZRR-0008Mh-Dx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:52:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.100 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.100; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk; Received: from outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.100]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Y2ZRQ-0005Zc-6Y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:52:33 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id sBL5qO7S082445; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:52:24 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 sBL5qK2x073586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:52:23 GMT Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 00:52:20 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Mark Friedenbach Message-ID: <20141221055220.GB8255@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="ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 890183e0-88d5-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAMUHFAXAgsB AmIbW1FeVV97W2A7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmQm59 A19lUFFycAZDcHg+ bEdlWj5TVUR7fUUo QlNcHTkDeGZhPWQC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA43HjN0 XR0GFCkuGkseRyQr ZxYrNkEREUBzen0o NlwvHFUWdicPAAlf FEhRAShfb1AHS2IC Cx9bGHQTCDlUUG97 GBQjJhJTagEI X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 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: 1Y2ZRQ-0005Zc-6Y Cc: Bitcoin Development 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:52:34 -0000 --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >=20 > > However the converse is not possible: anti-replay cannot be used to > > implement proof-of-publication. Knowing that no conflicting message > > exists says nothing about who be in posession of that message, or > > indeed, any message at all. Thus anti-replay is not sufficient to > > implement other uses of proof-of-publication such as decentralized > > exchange=B3. > > >=20 > I think you are trying to say something more specific / limited than that, > and I suggest you adjust your wording accordingly. Decentralized exchange > would be possible today with vanilla bitcoin using SIGHASH_SINGLE if only > the protocol supported multiple validated assets (which it could, but > doesn't). Rather straightforward further extensions to the protocol would > enable market participants to use a wider class of orders, as well as > enable the buyer rather than the seller to dictate order sizes via partial > redemption, as we demonstrate in our Freimarkets paper. Do you realise that all those Freimarket's uses are either based on proof-of-publication, or insecure due to sybil attacks? --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000017d70ee98f4cee509d95c4f31d5b998bae6deb09df1088fc --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJUlmAQXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxN2Q3MGVlOThmNGNlZTUwOWQ5NWM0ZjMxZDViOTk4YmFl NmRlYjA5ZGYxMDg4ZmMvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfv1Gwf/agFr6cRO4BIkqwdYkIHA60cr EOt/B0qLVUjSR8VlgCHKjl0jZ889z5AGaCCGVabiyubHfnu8/99hjqODPCmK5E8v N+/ENMxrcjjlOTqHg4XaeeIGsdk6M9FfDIKUmxQ0sERrKIs3Sn08SizNLMo1KJus NIaSuRCq+hjGicDow1aSx8Xgc5VS9KEV5IkC/uPxRw8OXRuRJnk6XDHeORdchZ50 LNVxbqlqZCpAAfsQFXZ9H5zB2jbIlI3TPZX/fJNdLECIERKcIsTHKyjEwWljDVj/ 8gpW/nhTqF8I6s2taRBffcONu/QCB39nD0jPHhrvEcvQ8+8a0//x2ESF1exZ8g== =+it6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM--