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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1S3tAj-0007K6-4H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:55:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1S3tAi-0006jN-AI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:55:09 +0000
Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1so2368648wer.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gavinandresen@gmail.com designates
10.180.104.137 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.104.137;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
gavinandresen@gmail.com designates 10.180.104.137 as permitted
sender) smtp.mail=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
dkim=pass header.i=gavinandresen@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.104.137])
by 10.180.104.137 with SMTP id ge9mr4987807wib.20.1330797302274
(num_hops = 1); Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.104.137 with SMTP id ge9mr3947925wib.20.1330797302172;
Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.58.129 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cne5An+SyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACsn0c=P1veYnmXe4E3qU0OC=Xr9Aw6Fy=6Zm0sUAaSBEDvpMA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACsn0cne5An+SyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:55:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3rNtTAhi+QKibuxpW=tMzdfvTRPLb_3PoA7MY0QVAeaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1S3tAi-0006jN-AI
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Proposal for a new opcode
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:55:09 -0000
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous
> transactions.
That's very exciting! I'm eager to read the paper for all of the
details, and working out what else would need to be done besides a new
opcode to enable strong anonymity (at the very least, I assume we'll
need one or more new 'standard' transaction types that clients
understand).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
