{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:42:33AM -0700, Eric Lombrozo wrote:\n\u003e If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay…\n\nIndeed.\n\nFor instance, one of the ideas behind my Proofchains work is that you\ncould hind all details of a smartcontract-whatchamacallit protocol\nbehind single-use-seals in a consensus blockchain. Closing those seals,\nthat is spending the appropriate txouts, represents things in the\nprotocol which are absolutely unobservable to anyone without the data\nbehind those hashes, an extreme version of the above.\n\n\nIncidentally, some patent prior-art exposure:\n\nhttps://github.com/proofchains/python-proofchains\n\n:)\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000a203bd78c8536399f67275064107def6c7afea29c4e3a7b\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/82e55b95/attachment.sig\u003e"}