On 2014-12-22 00:11, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote: > The classic "proof-of-publication" system is to embed opaque data (as > far as bitcoin miners are concerned) in transactions using OP_RETURN. > A significance of establishing "proof-of-publication" as a universal > underlying primitive is that this OP_RETURN trick is then sufficient > for anything you might want. But part of what Bitcoin provides is > indexing and validation/exclusion, and this is important for > supporting efficient anti-replay proofs. Proof-of-(non)-publication > alone isn't sufficient for this.
Are we going to get an answer to this or Adam Back's critique? Doesn't sound like this so-called "proof-of-publication" actually works according to the experts. Is it an concept anyone but Peter Todd actually believes in? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
