1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B239C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D7782423
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 63D7782423
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=fVB1xdwB
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ZxrSEqmnNKwX
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:48:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 9469082422
Received: from mail-40138.protonmail.ch (mail-40138.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.138])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9469082422
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:48:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:48:27 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1658242114; x=1658501314;
bh=o6ronnvCGXlTCi/vWDeliQ4Bo3QUPKq7rue7+VIeCN0=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:
Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=fVB1xdwB9qoO9QS6XQG1c4c4tWiLgwJfo88wAOuBAgbGqHsFUXAY83vAqEJKQYduQ
Hz1Fi9xzURliRU+CB3XHLpov+HVvPVl4HWppNj1XvmwKEG3Ue0iJbHHsSul+CUIhjQ
RE+hBsmDqdYB709LpjdztZZPzI/IYIep4yodTUwWP5EHh76EyUjleY8FVmykV0LW7c
Df+r+H0UAMohn6XZUyK6u/3g2SSYnWUEpR5xZHlnudQSGeHvgfOp45k6I2YFdIiKEA
/b5bISst2inE8YzhpduWMHFMcxDMs5ktfv4OS9nsICCTC1VTRzs0F5xXTornkiFLza
PRkFGQCx1rADA==
To: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <2RqMBHD1F81zChgG5I40iCbuAriXQARjeDcMWuFDiPFh3cegBC-GDfsj6rr7pzU2myZLWf65DatR9eHpBSZOmWDP0XHRycg8Y3T-Y85H8vI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv7TjaFW8oOjrJGjUCkMLy2nfSOkjsR0Dg3Rbzq7__WOVir7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OPZNUXvYVkB6kyu7Xvw5-lLIwwwftN_pz0iavHInWvQtQaxIzJhYQrx3dkITo9Yge02emrXY3obveywkH04dyAJdETIeeq9-zcH3DA7OxKs=@protonmail.com>
<CAPv7TjadLN0X31vdo6ATy_aYepbcykZ8Vp8ghQA9W-GEV4axmg@mail.gmail.com>
<l8iSmPDtMssCoGR0b4twwHMB551xnJBL1wK1jDZcvA8ipKlnBOdZw8ZFVBc4vZzLUlOC3qKB0aEoF6XT7tyFKr6OPThemVD2SiIliCj3-P8=@protonmail.com>
<CAPv7TjaFW8oOjrJGjUCkMLy2nfSOkjsR0Dg3Rbzq7__WOVir7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to do Proof of Micro-Burn?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:48:37 -0000
Good morning Ruben,
> Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
> Interesting attempt.
>
> >a * G + b * G + k * G
>
> Unfortunately I don't think this qualifies as a commitment, since one cou=
ld trivially open the "commitment" to some uncommitted value x (e.g. a is s=
et to x and b is set to a+b-x). Perhaps you were thinking of Pedersen commi=
tments (a * G + b * H + k * J)?
I believe this is only possible for somebody who knows `k`?
As mentioned, an opening here includes a signature using `b + k` as the pri=
vate key, so the signature can only be generated with knowledge of both `b`=
and `k`.
I suppose that means that the knower of `k` is a trusted party; it is trust=
ed to only issue commitments and not generate fake ones.
> Even if we fixed the above with some clever cryptography, the crucial mer=
kle sum tree property is missing, so "double spending" a burn becomes possi=
ble.
I do not understand what this property is and how it is relevant, can you p=
lease explain this to a non-mathematician?
> You also still run into the same atomicity issue, except the risk is move=
d to the seller side, as the buyer could refuse to finalize the purchase af=
ter the on-chain commitment was made by the seller. Arguably this is worse,=
since generally only the seller has a reputation to lose, not the buyer.
A buyer can indeed impose this cost on the seller, though the buyer then is=
unable to get a valid opening of its commitment, as it does not know `k`.
Assuming the opening of the commitment is actually what has value (since th=
e lack of such an opening means the buyer cannot prove the commitment) then=
the buyer has every incentive to actually pay for the opening.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
