From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Building Blocks of the State Machine Approach to Consensus
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:58:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE28kUQXLc=-8SoEsWNXz99hezMBmM0ws+Xx3+nrp4YPZkMaPQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160623111152.GB19360@fedora-21-dvm>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2078 bytes --]
>
> The point I'm making is simply that to be useful, when you close a seal you
> have to be able to close it over some data, in particular, another seal.
> That's
> the key thing that makes the idea a useful construct for smart contacts,
> value
> transfer/currency systems, etc.
>
OK, your second post ("Closed Seal Sets and Truth Lists for Better Privacy
and Censorship Resistance") seems to clarify that this data is one of
arguments to the condition function.
Frankly this stuff is rather hard to follow. (Or maybe I'm dumb.)
Now I don't get scability properties. Let's consider a simplest scenario
where Alice creates some token, sends it to Bob, who sends it to Claire. So
now Claire needs to get both a proof that Alice sent it to Bob and that Bob
sent it to Claire, right? So Claire needs to verify 2 proofs, and for a
chain of N transfers one would need to verify N proofs, right?
And how it works in general:
1. Alice creates a token. To do that she constructs an unique expression
which checks her signature and signs a message "This token has such and
such meaning and its ownership originally associated with seal <hash of the
expression>" with her PGP key.
2. To transfer this token to Bob, she asks Bob for his auth expression and
sends a seal oracle a message (Alice_expression (Bob_expression .
signature)) where signatures is constructed in such a way that it evaluates
as true. Oracle stores this in a map: Alice_expression -> (Bob_expression .
signatures)
3. Bob sends token to Claire in a same way: (Bob_expression
(Claire_expression . signature))
4. Now Claire asks if Alice_expression->(Bob_expression . _) and
Bob_expression->(Claire_expression . _) are in oracle's map. She might
trust the oracle to verify signatures, but oracle doesn't understand token
semantics. Thus she needs to check if these entries were added.
If I understand correctly, Alice_expression->(Bob_expression . _) record
can be communicated in just 3 * size_of_hash_digest bytes.
So this seems to have rather bad scalability even with trusted oracles, am
I missing something?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3470 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-23 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-20 8:56 Peter Todd
2016-06-20 13:26 ` Police Terror
2016-06-20 16:21 ` zaki
2016-06-21 22:42 ` Peter Todd
2016-06-23 11:21 ` Peter Todd
2016-06-20 22:28 ` Alex Mizrahi
2016-06-23 11:11 ` Peter Todd
2016-06-23 12:58 ` Alex Mizrahi [this message]
2016-06-24 22:23 ` Peter Todd
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='CAE28kUQXLc=-8SoEsWNXz99hezMBmM0ws+Xx3+nrp4YPZkMaPQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alex.mizrahi@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/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