public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] one-show signatures (Re: The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:51:26 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141221185126.GC18711@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFK_sxdFjVi0qAC0JMdXa=tVBBNp0VrveRUfwa3b1UYhw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:10:47PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
> Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures
> (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And
> this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value
> choices).
> 
> I wasnt really making a point other than an aside that it maybe is
> sort-of possible to do with math what you said was not possible where
> you said "This [preventing signing more than one message] is
> impossible to implement with math alone".

Introducing a bunch of clever ECDSA math doesn't change the fact that
the clever math isn't what is preventing double-spending, clever
economics is. Just like Bitcoin itself.

No sense getting people potentially confused by a bunch of complex
equations that aren't relevant to the more fundemental and much more
important principle that math alone can't prevent double-spending.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001bc21486eb6e305efc085daa6b9acd37305feba64327342e

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-21 18:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-21 18:10 [Bitcoin-development] one-show signatures (Re: The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles) Adam Back
2014-12-21 18:51 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2014-12-22  0:56   ` paul snow

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141221185126.GC18711@savin.petertodd.org \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=adam@cypherspace.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox