On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:06:57PM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 04/02/16 20:32, Ian Clarke wrote: > > I've been reading about Bitcoin Contracts > > <http://go.toutapp.com/90b05fd2ceb9921d1d>, and I'm surprised by the > > similarity between these and, not just SSKs, but particularly the original > > proposal for SSKs <http://go.toutapp.com/47378f027c07c02552> from way back > > in June 2000, which involved a stack based language with cryptographic > > primitives, just like the language used for Bitcoin contracts. > > > > I don't know if the Bitcoin approach was inspired by SSKs at all, I suspect > > more likely independent reinvention to solve a similar problem. > > Perhaps. It's relevant to the PSKs discussion. > > In practice what you can do with Bitcoin script is severely restricted > by the miners... but there is no obvious reason for this that would also > apply to Freenet key verification.
Actually that's no longer true! If you're using P2SH, scripts are allowed to be pretty much anything, provided that you keep the total number of signature operations less than a reasonable limit. The real limit isn't the "standardness" rules that miners apply, but rather that the scripting language itself is very limited. Multiplication, division, bitwise operations, and string operations (like concatenation) were disabled years ago and haven't been re-added. That said, new opcodes can be added, so in the future this may change. And yes, it's very interesting to finally find an example of pre-Bitcoin script-like schemes; as far as I know Freenet and Bitcoin itself are the only examples out there; I'd love to know of more! -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000196ed57c58b7af01654e535f4e8d870b77490b40e481259
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
