public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Martin Habovštiak" <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Hashed keys are actually fully quantum secure
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:11:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALkkCJYaLMciqYxNFa6qT6-WCsSD3P9pP7boYs=k0htAdnAR6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb54cf2c858843e8a4a9029ac683b3ed@dtrt.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2632 bytes --]

Hi,

conceptually they are the same idea, I didn't see that conversation before.

Howerver, in that conversation there seems to be a better developed scheme
that is more secure as far as I can tell. I have just assumed that the
chain cannot be censored profitably if the number of blocks to wait for is
high enough (why: the miners are giving up fees by not including the
transaction and the attacker would have to split the reward between all
miners but the honest user only needs to outbid the attacker once)

That other idea seems to work even if the chain is censored for arbitrary
number of blocks. In the meantime I was also thinking of a scheme that
allows you to commit early and then wait for a any time you want but with
the ability to detect that someone else is trying to spend it, so that you
can act quickly. In some sense it was more similar but still not that good.
The proposed scheme with unique decommitment is better and should be
implemented instead of my idea.

Anyway, I believe even my weaker idea is still good enough to make my point
given how hard it is to censor a transaction. My point wasn't saying that
my specific implementation is the best but saying we can postpone the
decision to implement a QR scheme to much later than what some people might
think.

Have a nice day!

Martin

Dňa ne 30. 3. 2025, 17:41 David A. Harding <dave@dtrt.org> napísal(a):

> On 2025-03-16 08:25, Martin Habovštiak wrote:
> > It is possible to implement fully secure recovery if we forbid
> > spending of hashed keys unless done through the following scheme:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> How does this differ from Tim Ruffing's version[1] of Guy Fawkes
> signatures?[2][3]
>
> Thanks, -Dave
>
> [1]
>
> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/1518710367.3550.111.camel@mmci.uni-saarland.de/
> (but see also the whole thread and the links in it)
>
> [2] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/archive/rja14/Papers/fawkes.pdf
>
> [3] Amusing exploration of a blockchain cryptocurrency without
> signatures by Joseph Bonneau and Andrew Miller:
> https://jbonneau.com/doc/BM14-SPW-fawkescoin.pdf (never saw it before,
> but it came up in my search results for a Guy Fawkes signatures
> reference).
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CALkkCJYaLMciqYxNFa6qT6-WCsSD3P9pP7boYs%3Dk0htAdnAR6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3921 bytes --]

      reply	other threads:[~2025-03-31  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-16 18:25 [bitcoindev] Hashed keys are actually fully quantum secure Martin Habovštiak
2025-03-16 18:50 ` 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-03-18 16:48   ` Erik Aronesty
2025-03-24  0:24   ` Lloyd Fournier
2025-03-30 20:16     ` Martin Habovštiak
2025-03-16 19:03 ` Agustin Cruz
2025-03-16 20:52   ` Martin Habovštiak
2025-03-17 10:44 ` Lloyd Fournier
2025-03-17 11:07   ` Martin Habovštiak
2025-03-30 15:41 ` David A. Harding
2025-03-30 20:11   ` Martin Habovštiak [this message]

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='CALkkCJYaLMciqYxNFa6qT6-WCsSD3P9pP7boYs=k0htAdnAR6g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=martin.habovstiak@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=dave@dtrt.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