Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Post-Quantum commit / reveal Fawkescoin variant as a soft fork

From: Q C <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 08:50:28 -0700 (PDT)

*>>> You can always purchase new BTC to perform the commitment.*Jonathan's 
was probably referring to the public-key being exposed when performing the 
commitment (since this would defeat the purpose).

>From first post from Tadge in this thread, the payment needs to be made out 
of band, so the public key isn't exposed during the commitment phase:
>>> get that txid into an OP_RETURN output somehow (paying a miner out of 
band, etc)

On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 6:53:55 AM UTC-7 Peter Todd wrote:

> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 03:00:41PM -0700, Jonathan Voss wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, the main flaw in commit/reveal protocols is in the 
> > commit phase: if revealing a commitment with N confirmations is required 
> to 
> > spend bitcoins, then, without spending any bitcoins, how do you get the 
> > commitment into the blockchain in the first place? Maybe I am just 
> > misunderstanding this. If so, then a commit/reveal scheme may be a 
> workable 
> > solution.
>
> You can always purchase new BTC to perform the commitment.
>
> Indeed, this problem is often seen in alt-coins where fees must be paid in 
> a
> native asset, while users are trying to send some kind of tokenized asset 
> like
> a USD token. You can have funds that you can't move because you don't have 
> the
> correct asset. While annoying, this isn't a fatal problem.
>
> -- 
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/77c90109-6f21-4f92-b122-0a7034fb1a87n%40googlegroups.com.