Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-12-21 📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-12-21
📝 Original message: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.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001bc21486eb6e305efc085daa6b9acd37305feba64327342e
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141221/a20fc8eb/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message: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.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001bc21486eb6e305efc085daa6b9acd37305feba64327342e
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141221/a20fc8eb/attachment.sig>;