{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-20\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Signed PGP part\n\u003e On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should\n\u003e \u003e\u003e explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie”\n\u003e \u003e\u003e assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay…\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Non-repudiation can be built on top of the payment protocol layer.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Non-repudiation is an intrinsic property of the ECDSA signatures which\n\u003e Bitcoin uses - it's not a feature that needs to be built.\n\u003e \n\u003e There's no way to accidentally sign a transaction and accidentally\n\u003e announce it publicly. There is no form of third-party error that can\n\u003e result in a payee receiving an erroneous contract.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\nJustus,\n\nWe don’t even have a concept of identity in the Bitcoin protocol, let alone non-repudiation. What good is non-repudiation if there’s no way to even associate a signature with a legal entity?\n\nSure, we could use the ECDSA signatures in transactions as part of a non-repudiation scheme - but the recipient would have to also have a means to establish the identity of the sender and associate it with the the transaction.\n\n\nFurthermore, in light of the fact that there *are* fully legitimate use cases for sending conflicting transactions…and the fact that determination of intent isn’t always entirely clear…we should refrain from attaching any further significance transaction signatures other than that “the sender was willing to have it included in the blockchain if a miner were to have seen it and accepted it…but perhaps the sender would have changed their mind before it actually did get accepted.”\n\n- Eric Lombrozo\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150620/9dd48b8f/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150620/9dd48b8f/attachment.sig\u003e"}