Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-03-08 📝 Original message: How is that in practice ...

📅 Original date posted:2016-03-08
📝 Original message:
How is that in practice any different than a hash preimage?
On Mar 8, 2016 2:21 PM, "Martijn Meijering" <martijn.meijering at mevs.nl>
wrote:

> Now that we almost have SegWit and its soft fork mechanism for upgrading
> the scripting system, wouldn't it be a good idea to introduce a new opcode
> for signature verification for arbitrary but appropriately
> length-restricted messages? Instead of maintaining mirror images of txs and
> going through the dance of revealing hash preimages, wouldn't it be easier
> to to sign a message that revokes a previous balance (with hash + sequence
> number)? Am I overlooking anything? This looks like a simple new opcode
> that could substantially simplify the LN protocol.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20160308/80b0d416/attachment-0001.html>;