From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8RvW-0007Lm-G1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of airmail.cc designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=joliver@airmail.cc; helo=cock.li; Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Y8RvV-00031i-5v for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:54 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:47 +0000 From: joliver@airmail.cc To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck> <20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org> <20141222001136.GA10165@savin.petertodd.org> Message-ID: <57e9838d0b92bd3226b10c6cf2651914@airmail.cc> X-Sender: joliver@airmail.cc User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 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_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1Y8RvV-00031i-5v 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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:03:54 -0000 On 2014-12-22 00:11, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote: > 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. Are we going to get an answer to this or Adam Back's critique? Doesn't sound like this so-called "proof-of-publication" actually works according to the experts. Is it an concept anyone but Peter Todd actually believes in?