On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 16:47 -0400, 0xb100d wrote:
>
> It struck me (and this is clearly an immense technical overhead idea
> and likely very bad) that you could have two chains a MIM and a WIM
> one that was binding and one that was hiding, and you would move
> value from one to the other dependin
> Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [Mimblewimble] [POLL] Perfectly hiding vs perfectly binding
> Local Time: August 19, 2017 2:46 PM
> UTC Time: August 19, 2017 9:46 PM
> From: apoels...@wpsoftware.net
> To: Ignotus Peverell
> mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.ne
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 07:37:33PM -0400, Ignotus Peverell wrote:
> I think it makes sense. It's a reasonable price to pay and I like that it
> makes it a lot easier to scan your unspent outputs. One question: switch
> commitments reuse H and compute SHA256(rH). Any particular reason why we'd
>
gain instead of SHA256 but that's a detail.
- Igno
> Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [Mimblewimble] [POLL] Perfectly hiding vs perfectly binding
> Local Time: August 16, 2017 7:20 PM
> UTC Time: August 16, 2017 7:20 PM
> From: apoels...@wpsoftware.net
>
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:14:27PM -0400, Ignotus Peverell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I thought running a little poll could be fun and it's on a topic that may be
> more emotional than technical: in the advent of Quantum Computers, or even
> computers of infinite power, do we prefer transactions that
The final tally is 5 votes for perfectly binding vs 3 for perfectly hiding,
including my own vote for the latter. I had a slight preference for perfectly
hiding previously to the vote and still do. It's been great hearing the
different arguments on both sides.
Note that, as pointed out by John
After speaking to Igno, @urza_cc_twitter on the Grin Gitter and Peter Todd,
I've reconsidered my position. I am now in favor of perfect hiding for grin.
My reasons are thus:
- First, unlike in Elements/Liquid/"Bitcoin+CT"/etc, in Mimblewimble the
CT blinding factors are authentication keys.
I should start by saying that I am in favor of unconditional soundness.
My reasons are twofold:
- First, user assurance that no inflation has happened or ever will
happen, even in the presence of a discrete logarithm break/QC.
Note that unlike Bitcoin, we can't just softfork in a replac
Hi All,
In a world where large quantum computers exist, then only perfectly binding
chains are of any use of all.
However, if a world where large quantum computers do not exist, then it
seems like perfectly hiding chains are preferable.
Barring undisclosed advances in quantum computing, we seem
You guys are too shy :-) I'm getting very well reasoned replies off-list that
others could benefit from.
- Igno
Original Message
Subject: [Mimblewimble] [POLL] Perfectly hiding vs perfectly binding
Local Time: May 3, 2017 5:14 PM
UTC Time: May 4, 2017 12:14 AM
From: igno.pever.
dear Igno,
This is a tough decision! If scalable quantum computers are our
only worry, then there's a lot to be said for Pedersen. I love its
simplicity and efficiency. And it seems likely that such quantum
computers will make their presence known in some way or other.
But we still cannot take cl
11 matches
Mail list logo
