From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF338E5D for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:06:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f42.google.com (mail-lf0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08653178 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i124so10150012lfe.3 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:06:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=2ko4uAKYG/8W2ntIodqeuQC+siMhlAP3ZQIumaFbU68=; b=H450zGV0IdpaN/wKmbgiGcprQ42pIOwuccBgJJq0NiMIDA7kPIV/lc7IjdpkXiYr36 cqBe5DA9zMfSLfvYHo06xX4eDuKxY4XSCunbK9XqmsBBaNNhiFRb5crYLD88BANXHd3q cY+7pBWo/inDeWLvFYRKdypWqPyQ56ZvDa0xgTxBgrWPpP1yBFZkWIGiyORCvM7Smmga edEuJHXbsQPFC1tf1uzSKcGUZduBGokOtNK2EnVrqyBYvk1L1jDSSbAvc5xh9euRD5FU SnHsqGaaAf0QC4UtjcXePmKw8/K6mLdSBK7zpgY4eYh97TyS/WNn1owNV1PNQN9n01g3 BvTA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.4.214 with SMTP id 205mr28452069lfe.90.1452269194448; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.25.78 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:06:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8760z4rbng.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <8737u8qnye.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20160108153329.GA15731@sapphire.erisian.com.au> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:06:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Anthony Towns , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb9f0741e350528d4c5a8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:41:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Time to worry about 80-bit collision attacks or not? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:06:37 -0000 --001a113fb9f0741e350528d4c5a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > And Ethan or Anthony: can you think of a similar attack scheme if you > assume we had switched to Schnorr 2-of-2 signatures by then? Don't answer that, I was being dense again, Anthony's scheme works with Schnorr... -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a113fb9f0741e350528d4c5a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.c= om> wrote:
And Ethan or Ant= hony: =C2=A0can you think of a similar attack scheme if you assume we had s= witched to Schnorr 2-of-2 signatures by then?

Don'= ;t answer that, I was being dense again, Anthony's scheme works with Sc= hnorr...


--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a113fb9f0741e350528d4c5a8--