Re: [Mimblewimble] defending against malicious transactors

> I agree with the need to enable non-repudiation in transactions. I > originally had a simpler scheme in mind (basically the sender adds a nonce > to the blinding factor, the receiver puts his blinded output, the sender > subtracts the nonce*G from total and builds the sig) but there may be > adva

Re: [Mimblewimble] defending against malicious transactors

I agree with the need to enable non-repudiation in transactions. I originally had a simpler scheme in mind (basically the sender adds a nonce to the blinding factor, the receiver puts his blinded output, the sender subtracts the nonce*G from total and builds the sig) but there may be advantages

[Mimblewimble] defending against malicious transactors

The original whitepaper at http://mimblewimble.cash/20160719-OriginalWhitePaper.txt proposes the following transaction creation procedure: 1. Sender and recipient agree on amount to be sent. Call this b. 2. Sender creates transaction with all inputs and change output(s), and gives recipi