Author: paul snow 2014-12-21 13:49:17
Published on: 2014-12-21T13:49:17+00:00
In an email conversation, Peter Todd discussed the limitations of anti-replay as a tool for proof-of-publication. He argued that anti-replay cannot be used to determine who is in possession of a particular message, or any message at all. This is because anti-replay only ensures that conflicting messages do not exist and does not provide information on ownership or possession. On the other hand, proof-of-publication allows for repeated entries and leaves interpretation up to observers rather than the publishing vehicle. The data itself defines possession, not the proof. Todd suggests that it is possible to test if a message is publishable in an anti-replay system without actually publishing it, allowing for the determination of non-publishing. However, he notes that this assumes that such a search is possible and must be incorporated into the design of an anti-replay system. Overall, Todd argues that while anti-replay has its uses, it is insufficient for implementing other uses of proof-of-publication, such as decentralized exchange.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T15:01:32.753494+00:00