📅 Original date posted:2013-06-10
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
> to sign votes. Not only that, but it would require them to reveal their
> public key, which while isn't technically so terrible, large amounts of
> money intended to be kept in storage for 10+ years will prefer to avoid
> any exposure at all, in the oft-chance that QCs come around a lot
> earlier than we expected. Sure, the actual risk should be pretty much
> non-existent, but some of the most paranoid folks are probably the same
> ones who have a lot of funds and want 100.00% of the security that is
> possible. They will see this as wildly inconvenient.
Solving that problem is pretty easy actually: just add a voting only
public key to your outputs. Specifically you would have an opcode called
something like "OP_VOTE" and put a code-path in your script that only
executes for that specific key.
It'd work best if we implement merklized abstract syntax trees to allow
you to reveal only the part of a script that is actually executed rather
than the whole script, a feature useful for a lot of other things.
Incidentally remember that we can implement as many new opcodes as we
want with a soft-fork by redefining one of the OP_NOP's to be a
OP_VERSION opcode that returns false for a given version:
version OP_VERSION OP_IFNOT {new opcodes} OP_ENDIF
Nodes with the existing codebase will think the script always succeeds,
because the IFNOT branch isn't taken, leaving the non-false version on
the stack, while new nodes will take that branch.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000109243df1322b7b5173c5796cf979318e933d887210c981c1f8
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130610/0edca47a/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 17:03:10
in reply to nevent1q…thx2
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:03:10Event JSON
{
"id": "ba2ddb514e4db99e2cf3f282ce68d67292ba4f05a2d2f4af903c55b3f2142258",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686150190,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9c65e0538c0c65dd524896d67b9a9f484c5068051e57f2d48f8752479be057b1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"53208037e24cb3bcc75710a07ddae1df484bcc0a9e99dda4defe6901f905d255",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-06-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:\n\u003e to sign votes. Not only that, but it would require them to reveal their\n\u003e public key, which while isn't technically so terrible, large amounts of\n\u003e money intended to be kept in storage for 10+ years will prefer to avoid\n\u003e any exposure at all, in the oft-chance that QCs come around a lot\n\u003e earlier than we expected. Sure, the actual risk should be pretty much\n\u003e non-existent, but some of the most paranoid folks are probably the same\n\u003e ones who have a lot of funds and want 100.00% of the security that is\n\u003e possible. They will see this as wildly inconvenient.\n\nSolving that problem is pretty easy actually: just add a voting only\npublic key to your outputs. Specifically you would have an opcode called\nsomething like \"OP_VOTE\" and put a code-path in your script that only\nexecutes for that specific key.\n\nIt'd work best if we implement merklized abstract syntax trees to allow\nyou to reveal only the part of a script that is actually executed rather\nthan the whole script, a feature useful for a lot of other things.\n\n\nIncidentally remember that we can implement as many new opcodes as we\nwant with a soft-fork by redefining one of the OP_NOP's to be a\nOP_VERSION opcode that returns false for a given version:\n\n version OP_VERSION OP_IFNOT {new opcodes} OP_ENDIF\n\nNodes with the existing codebase will think the script always succeeds,\nbecause the IFNOT branch isn't taken, leaving the non-false version on\nthe stack, while new nodes will take that branch.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000109243df1322b7b5173c5796cf979318e933d887210c981c1f8\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 198 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130610/0edca47a/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "0d3a619477109890974bf6c6f25f37f61070fce9aaf5ee30c5c021c7debd0533cd387481f869943dcf55364c94e278d264b12e5dd1d23fa82bc2c6bd9d3e3f48"
}