one-show signatures (Re: The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles)
3 messages, 21 to 22 Dec 2014. Started by Adam Back.
Adam Back, Peter Todd, paul snow
Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value choices).
I wasnt really making a point other than an aside that it maybe is sort-of possible to do with math what you said was not possible where you said "This [preventing signing more than one message] is impossible to implement with math alone".
Adam
On 21 December 2014 at 15:29, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Quoted text (4 lines)
> There's no need to get into the specifics of crypto math so early; you > can just as easily and only slightly less efficiently obtain the same > result with a few extensions to the Bitcoin scripting system to verify > ECDSA signatures directly.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:10:47PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures > (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And > this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value > choices). > > I wasnt really making a point other than an aside that it maybe is > sort-of possible to do with math what you said was not possible where > you said "This [preventing signing more than one message] is > impossible to implement with math alone".
Introducing a bunch of clever ECDSA math doesn't change the fact that the clever math isn't what is preventing double-spending, clever economics is. Just like Bitcoin itself.
No sense getting people potentially confused by a bunch of complex equations that aren't relevant to the more fundemental and much more important principle that math alone can't prevent double-spending.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
Quoted text (18 lines)
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:10:47PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > Yes you could for example define a new rule that two signatures > > (double-spend) authorises something - eg miners to take funds. (And > > this would work with existing ECDSA addresses & unrestricted R-value > > choices). > > > > I wasnt really making a point other than an aside that it maybe is > > sort-of possible to do with math what you said was not possible where > > you said "This [preventing signing more than one message] is > > impossible to implement with math alone". > > Introducing a bunch of clever ECDSA math doesn't change the fact that > the clever math isn't what is preventing double-spending, clever > economics is. Just like Bitcoin itself. > > No sense getting people potentially confused by a bunch of complex > equations that aren't relevant to the more fundemental and much more > important principle that math alone can't prevent double-spending.
Math alone describes all of Bitcoin's structure; as math is a way to model reality, it has no limits. Saying Math can't prevent double-spending is near equivalent to saying it cannot be done.