> El Gamal commitments, for example, are perfectly binding but only computationally hiding.
That's very interesting. I stand corrected in that respect. Thanks for the information Adam! On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 05:17 AdamISZ <adam...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hiding coin > amounts would make it impossible to audit the blockchain and verify that > there hasn't been inflation and the emission schedule is on schedule. It > would inherently remove unconditional soundness from bitcoin and replace it > with computational soundness. Even if bitcoin did adopt it, it would keep > backwards compatibility with old style addresses which could continue to > use ordinals. > > Nit: it isn't technically correct to say that amount hiding "inherently > removes unconditional soundness". Such commitments can be either perfectly > hiding or perfectly binding; it isn't even logically possible for them to > be both, sadly. But we are not forced to choose perfect binding; El Gamal > commitments, for example, are perfectly binding but only computationally > hiding. >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
