📅 Original date posted:2016-08-10
📝 Original message:> The OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines:
>
> https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy
Similar indeed, thank you for the link.
2016-08-09 0:53 GMT+03:00 Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org>:
>
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:41:27PM +0000, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Wouldn't you lose the ability to assume transactions in the blockchain are
> > verified as valid, since miners can't see the details of what is being
> > spent and how? I feel like this ability is bitcoin's greatest asset, and by
> > removing it you're creating an altcoin different enough to not be connected
> > to/supported by the main bitcoin project.
>
> The fact that miners verify transactions is just an optimisation:
>
> https://petertodd.org/2013/disentangling-crypto-coin-mining
>
> Preventing double-spending however is a fundemental requirement of Bitcoin, and
> this proposal does prevent double-spending perfectly well (although there may
> be better ways to do it).
>
> The OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines:
>
> https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
Tony Churyumoff [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nk…pugay
2023-06-07 17:52:41
in reply to nevent1q…rzz6
Author Public Key
npub1nk74067d6t4s9rxlad2ldmpr5wfe3uaquafs8hgklwlmh35y97gqrpugayPublished at
2023-06-07 17:52:41Event JSON
{
"id": "5698aa6c7624e2d884d288826f956c6d0ad666367d4f5cc951a40d979c0d3bb5",
"pubkey": "9dbd57ebcdd2eb028cdfeb55f6ec23a39398f3a0e75303dd16fbbfbbc6842f90",
"created_at": 1686160361,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"05bc61b7fb55e90aebe418bf08f46e091b7d871fe35b34f9286d7e01dc626f31",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-10\n📝 Original message:\u003e The OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines:\n\u003e\n\u003e https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy\n\nSimilar indeed, thank you for the link.\n\n\n2016-08-09 0:53 GMT+03:00 Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:41:27PM +0000, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Wouldn't you lose the ability to assume transactions in the blockchain are\n\u003e \u003e verified as valid, since miners can't see the details of what is being\n\u003e \u003e spent and how? I feel like this ability is bitcoin's greatest asset, and by\n\u003e \u003e removing it you're creating an altcoin different enough to not be connected\n\u003e \u003e to/supported by the main bitcoin project.\n\u003e\n\u003e The fact that miners verify transactions is just an optimisation:\n\u003e\n\u003e https://petertodd.org/2013/disentangling-crypto-coin-mining\n\u003e\n\u003e Preventing double-spending however is a fundemental requirement of Bitcoin, and\n\u003e this proposal does prevent double-spending perfectly well (although there may\n\u003e be better ways to do it).\n\u003e\n\u003e The OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines:\n\u003e\n\u003e https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org",
"sig": "694798f53e9f1b0a2a677460b25cc50f367329d4aff9c07f54095eebcda3e46f716be5ff80f40b32c041174c02c850a2855c9aeb891a92f00f4d80c14a478a95"
}