From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize•io>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] homomorphic coin value (validatable but encrypted) (Re: smart contracts -- possible use case? yes or no?)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:26:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131001142603.GA9208@netbook.cypherspace.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5248680C.60404@monetize.io>
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:49:00AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>This kind of thing - providing external audits of customer accounts
>without revealing private data - would be generally useful beyond
>taxation. If you have any solutions, I'd be interested to hear them
>(although bitcoin-dev is probably not the right place yet).
Thanks for providing the impetus to write down the current state, the
efficient version of which I only figured out a few days ago :)
I have been researching this for a few months on and off, because it seems
like an interesting construct in its own right, a different aspect of
payment privacy (eg for auditable but commercial sensistive information) but
also that other than its direct use it may enable some features that we have
not thought of yet.
I moved it to bitcointalk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.new#new
Its efficient finally (after many dead ends): approximately 2x cost of
current in terms of coin size and coin verification cost, however it also
gives some perf advantages back in a different way - necessary changes to
schnorr (EC version of Schnorr based proofs) allow n of n multiparty sigs,
or k of n multiparty sigs for the verification cost and signature size of
one pair of ECS signatures, for n > 2 its a space and efficiency improvement
over current bitcoin.
Adam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-01 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-27 23:41 [Bitcoin-development] smart contracts -- possible use case? yes or no? Melvin Carvalho
2013-09-28 20:15 ` rob.golding
2013-09-29 2:28 ` Neil Fincham
2013-09-29 8:32 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-09-29 9:37 ` Adam Back
2013-09-29 17:49 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-10-01 14:26 ` Adam Back [this message]
2013-10-01 19:11 ` [Bitcoin-development] homomorphic coin value (validatable but encrypted) (Re: smart contracts -- possible use case? yes or no?) Adam Back
2013-10-07 19:01 ` Adam Back
2013-09-29 9:44 ` [Bitcoin-development] smart contracts -- possible use case? yes or no? Melvin Carvalho
2013-09-29 9:46 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-09-29 11:33 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131001142603.GA9208@netbook.cypherspace.org \
--to=adam@cypherspace$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=mark@monetize$(echo .)io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox