Published on: 2014-12-22T00:56:28+00:00
In a discussion between Peter Todd and Adam Back, the possibility of preventing double-spending in Bitcoin was explored. Adam Back suggested that it is possible to define a new rule where two signatures authorize something, such as miners taking funds. He mentioned that this could work with existing ECDSA addresses and unrestricted R-value choices.However, Peter Todd argued that clever math alone is not what prevents double-spending in Bitcoin. He emphasized that it is clever economics, like the underlying principle of Bitcoin itself, that prevents double-spending. Todd cautioned against confusing people with complex equations that are not directly relevant to the fundamental principle.Todd further explained that math models reality and has no limits. Therefore, saying that math cannot prevent double-spending is equivalent to saying that it cannot be done. He believed that focusing on complex equations could potentially obscure the more important understanding that math alone cannot prevent double-spending.The conversation also touched upon the possibility of using math to prevent signing more than one message. Adam Back suggested that it may be possible to achieve this to some extent. However, Peter Todd suggested that delving into crypto math at this stage might not be necessary. Instead, he proposed using extensions to the Bitcoin scripting system to verify ECDSA signatures directly.The discussion primarily revolved around the technical aspects of implementing new rules regarding signatures and authorizations. The participants explored how these changes can be achieved within the existing framework of Bitcoin.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T11:03:07.484641+00:00