From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Building Blocks of the State Machine Approach to Consensus
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:11:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160623111152.GB19360@fedora-21-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE28kUTkBmhLm-7rNVtX7Dm2yYABQiepZX0RCYpBn60Uo9=ehA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2039 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 01:28:48AM +0300, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> > All practical single-use seals will be associated with some kind of
> > condition,
> > such as a pubkey, or deterministic expression, that needs to be satisfied
> > for
> > the seal to be closed.
>
>
> I think it would be useful to classify systems w.r.t. what data is
> available to condition.
> I imagine it might be useful if status of other seals is available.
Useful yes, but actually implementing that often results in systems that are
too tightly coupled to scale well.
> > Secondly, the contents of the proof will be able to
> > commit to new data, such as the transaction spending the output associated
> > with
> > the seal.
> >
>
> So basically a "condition" returns that "new data", right?
> If it commits to a data in a recognizable way, then it's practically a
> function which yields a tuple (valid, new_data).
> If an oracle doesn't care about data then you can convert it to a predicate
> using a simple projection.
> But from point of view of a client, it is a function which returns a tuple.
What do you mean by "new data"?
The point I'm making is simply that to be useful, when you close a seal you
have to be able to close it over some data, in particular, another seal. That's
the key thing that makes the idea a useful construct for smart contacts, value
transfer/currency systems, etc.
> It might help if you describe a type of the condition function.
I did describe some seal authorization condition functions in my more recent
post; the key thing is you'd have some kind of "checksig" operator that checks
a cryptographic signature.
> Some related work on UTXO-based smart contracts:
<snip>
Thanks for the links! Not at all surprising to me that there's a whole bunch of
projects working along those same lines; it's the obvious way to build this
kind of stuff once you realise that the imperative, stateful, model isn't
viable.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-23 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-20 8:56 [bitcoin-dev] Building Blocks of the State Machine Approach to Consensus Peter Todd
2016-06-20 13:26 ` Police Terror
2016-06-20 16:21 ` zaki
2016-06-21 22:42 ` Peter Todd
2016-06-23 11:21 ` Peter Todd
2016-06-20 22:28 ` Alex Mizrahi
2016-06-23 11:11 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2016-06-23 12:58 ` Alex Mizrahi
2016-06-24 22:23 ` Peter Todd
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=20160623111152.GB19360@fedora-21-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd.org \
--cc=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
/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