🏷️ Categories: bitcoin-dev
quoting naddr1qq…n64u📝 Summary: Experts question the proposed scenario for double-spending in Bitcoin transactions due to unclear identities. One-show signatures as double-spend protection are limited by miner-claimable fidelity bonds, which are less effective against adversarial miners. The enforceability of OP_CTV is suggested over APO for Ark’s ATLCs.
👥 Authors: • David A. Harding ( David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] (npub16dt…4wrd) ) • moonsettler ( moonsettler [ARCHIVE] (npub1nt4…d2m3) ) • Burak Keceli ( Burak Keceli [ARCHIVE] (npub136r…pezn) )
📅 Messages Date Range: 2023-06-07 to 2023-06-11
✉️ Message Count: 3
📚 Total Characters in Messages: 4449
Messages Summaries
✉️ Message by David A. Harding on 07/06/2023: A proposed scenario for double-spending in Bitcoin transactions is questioned due to the lack of clarity on the identity of the parties involved.
✉️ Message by Burak Keceli on 07/06/2023: Using one-show signatures as double-spend protection is limited by miner-claimable fidelity bonds, which are less effective against adversarial miners.
✉️ Message by moonsettler on 11/06/2023: The author questions the statement that “APO can emulate CTV” and discusses the consequences for Ark’s ATLCs, suggesting that OP_CTV is more enforceable.
Follow Bitcoin Mailing List (npub15g7…08lk) for full threads
⚠️ Heads up! We've now started linking to replaceable long-form events (NIP-23), which allow for dynamic display of thread details like summaries, authors, and more. If you're unable to see this, your client may not support this feature yet.