📝 Summary: Experts question the proposed scenario for double-spending in Bitcoin transactions due to unclear identities. One-show signatures as double-spend protection are limited by miner-claimable fidelity bonds, which are less effective against adversarial miners. The enforceability of OP_CTV is suggested over APO for Ark's ATLCs.
👥 Authors:
• David A. Harding ( @David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] )
• moonsettler ( @moonsettler [ARCHIVE] )
• Burak Keceli ( @Burak Keceli [ARCHIVE] )
• David A. Harding ( @David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] )
• moonsettler ( @moonsettler [ARCHIVE] )
• Burak Keceli ( @Burak Keceli [ARCHIVE] )
📅 Messages Date Range: 2023-06-07 to 2023-06-11
✉️ Message Count: 3
📚 Total Characters in Messages: 4449
Messages Summaries
✉️ Message by David A. Harding on 07/06/2023:
A proposed scenario for double-spending in Bitcoin transactions is questioned due to the lack of clarity on the identity of the parties involved.
A proposed scenario for double-spending in Bitcoin transactions is questioned due to the lack of clarity on the identity of the parties involved.
✉️ Message by Burak Keceli on 07/06/2023:
Using one-show signatures as double-spend protection is limited by miner-claimable fidelity bonds, which are less effective against adversarial miners.
Using one-show signatures as double-spend protection is limited by miner-claimable fidelity bonds, which are less effective against adversarial miners.
✉️ Message by moonsettler on 11/06/2023:
The author questions the statement that "APO can emulate CTV" and discusses the consequences for Ark's ATLCs, suggesting that OP_CTV is more enforceable.
The author questions the statement that "APO can emulate CTV" and discusses the consequences for Ark's ATLCs, suggesting that OP_CTV is more enforceable.