On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0600, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:06:57PM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Interesting. It seems that the intent is that with Bitcoin contracts > anything remotely complicated be outsourced to an "oracle", a trusted > third-party - which is a disappointingly centralized approach.
Indeed it is. On the other hand, it's not clear to us that there exist complicated contract use-cases that don't need an "oracle", yet are compatible with decentralized consensus systems. For example, while one might want to make some kind of smart contract to escrow physical delivery of product, pretty much every interesting thing that contract might do - like look up delivery status on a website - will never be possible directly in a decentralized consensus system because it requires state external to the system. A trusted delivery oracle is possible, but once you have that, running the contract itself on the oracle and having it interact with the parties invovled via a n-of-m multisig is a similar security model anyway - the oracle can screw you over regardless. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000002a4941595054a06c7c4d54cc9b1c45df8eeba44b1bbe15e
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
