[Bitcoin-development] The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles
pete at petertodd.org
Sun Dec 21 05:52:20 UTC 2014
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> > However the converse is not possible: anti-replay cannot be used to
> > implement proof-of-publication. Knowing that no conflicting message
> > exists says nothing about who be in posession of that message, or
> > indeed, any message at all. Thus anti-replay is not sufficient to
> > implement other uses of proof-of-publication such as decentralized
> > exchange³.
> I think you are trying to say something more specific / limited than that,
> and I suggest you adjust your wording accordingly. Decentralized exchange
> would be possible today with vanilla bitcoin using SIGHASH_SINGLE if only
> the protocol supported multiple validated assets (which it could, but
> doesn't). Rather straightforward further extensions to the protocol would
> enable market participants to use a wider class of orders, as well as
> enable the buyer rather than the seller to dictate order sizes via partial
> redemption, as we demonstrate in our Freimarkets paper.
Do you realise that all those Freimarket's uses are either based on
proof-of-publication, or insecure due to sybil attacks?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the bitcoin-dev