📅 Original date posted:2012-03-06
📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd <wbl at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous
> transactions. This new opcode enables scripts to be given proof that
> the receiver can carry out or has carried out a previous transaction.
> I'm currently working on a paper that discusses using this opcode for
> anonymous transactions.
I believe I understand what the opcode does directly— it just
validates an opaque signautre. I don't understand how it enables
anonymous transactions.
Can you spell this out for me?
In particular I don't see why it is not, from the perspective of the
blockchain, isomorphic to a hash locked transaction. (This
equivalence is more obvious when you think about how lamport
signtures turn simple hashing into a one time signature).
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 03:11:23
in reply to nevent1q…lq5t
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 03:11:23Event JSON
{
"id": "afb0d9bd2a6c25b37f8a48ae5171e6fbe07da956cb25e045bfde1c42413c467e",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686107483,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2cdf2fa507d39d95986d742ef4e46d8b2e15a7b31bcc17ff3c94f84f2fbe3c6e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"aef0869d24b456aa2b90ca0aac20406d855825e314da7fb3b745023dc49a462f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-03-06\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd \u003cwbl at uchicago.edu\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous\n\u003e transactions. This new opcode enables scripts to be given proof that\n\u003e the receiver can carry out or has carried out a previous transaction.\n\u003e I'm currently working on a paper that discusses using this opcode for\n\u003e anonymous transactions.\n\nI believe I understand what the opcode does directly— it just\nvalidates an opaque signautre. I don't understand how it enables\nanonymous transactions.\n\nCan you spell this out for me?\n\nIn particular I don't see why it is not, from the perspective of the\nblockchain, isomorphic to a hash locked transaction. (This\nequivalence is more obvious when you think about how lamport\nsigntures turn simple hashing into a one time signature).",
"sig": "794a7fdbbef7be3487759bd7749bce6357ebe263fbe41e1a182f6e314acdbc90fa8bc6495e8ab959d23062e23038a0f2fb1a6f32ca0eee5240e40b507aadf02d"
}