📅 Original date posted:2016-08-08 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at ...

Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /

npub1m23…2np2

2023-06-07 17:52:26

in reply to nevent1q…n33j

📅 Original date posted:2016-08-08
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160808/21a67947/attachment.sig>;

Author Public Key

npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:52:26

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "41669b8084446639dcf5f5e104b8d7cae0ab6b5916691e1c9a1780ee9c7f2f3a", "pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa", "created_at": 1686160346, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "ae333d0f17a38f0d93813c9365e2b4c52ff978cb9edb0ac873b1bbe342d91c71", "", "root" ], [ "e", "5309f1903f2016db696f602831976d1593ec8093b48ff1da13cd9e146f9708da", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "52e5d0646af3ea5ccb6c4bd31237d6068258a11ace3ac40f02466a3f89342928" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-08\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:41:27PM +0000, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Wouldn't you lose the ability to assume transactions in the blockchain are\n\u003e verified as valid, since miners can't see the details of what is being\n\u003e spent and how? I feel like this ability is bitcoin's greatest asset, and by\n\u003e removing it you're creating an altcoin different enough to not be connected\n\u003e to/supported by the main bitcoin project.\n\nThe fact that miners verify transactions is just an optimisation:\n\n https://petertodd.org/2013/disentangling-crypto-coin-mining\n\nPreventing double-spending however is a fundemental requirement of Bitcoin, and\nthis proposal does prevent double-spending perfectly well (although there may\nbe better ways to do it).\n\nThe OP's proposal sounds quite similar to my earlier one along similar lines:\n\n https://petertodd.org/2016/closed-seal-sets-and-truth-lists-for-privacy\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160808/21a67947/attachment.sig\u003e", "sig": "f52ad84a582359e235b5989a21949550e4a0f615e62d7603a0b8e7943edf602bbb6897f2b2b96f7ffaa31ee2b98754b18e47c4952346a05ae312283f7ac597a1" }