Re: [bitcoindev] Post-Quantum commit / reveal Fawkescoin variant as a soft fork

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1217 bytes --]

On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 03:00:41PM -0700, Jonathan Voss wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the main flaw in commit/reveal protocols is in the 
> commit phase: if revealing a commitment with N confirmations is required to 
> spend bitcoins, then, without spending any bitcoins, how do you get the 
> commitment into the blockchain in the first place? Maybe I am just 
> misunderstanding this. If so, then a commit/reveal scheme may be a workable 
> solution.

You can always purchase new BTC to perform the commitment.

Indeed, this problem is often seen in alt-coins where fees must be paid in a
native asset, while users are trying to send some kind of tokenized asset like
a USD token. You can have funds that you can't move because you don't have the
correct asset. While annoying, this isn't a fatal problem.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

-- 
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/aD2J9HNJUqaod0n2%40petertodd.org.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]