On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> -My protocol works, your's doesn't. It's not enough to have a mix, the
> mix needs to be verifiable to avoid
> one of the mixers inserting their own key and removing a key that
> should be in there. That doesn't mean you can't make your protoco
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous
>> transactions. This new opcode enables scripts to be given proof that
>> the receiver can carry out or has carri
Sounds interesting, however, even after a couple of days, I cannot see how you
maintain protection against double spend using OP_CHECKEXPSIG. It is not until
you redeem the OP_CHECKEXPSIG transaction that you reveal which former
transactions that was involved?
I guess I am missing a point here?
3 matches
Mail list logo
