pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper | Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com Fri Oct 31 bitcoin
Satoshi Nakamoto https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014858.html satoshi at vistomail.com Fri Nov 14 23:43:00 EST 2008 Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Next message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] I'll try and hurry up and release the sourcecode as soon as possible to serve as a reference to help clear up all these implementation questions.
Ray Dillinger (Bear) wrote:
When a coin is spent, the buyer and seller digitally sign a (blinded) transaction record.
Only the buyer signs, and there's no blinding.
If someone double spends, then the transaction record can be unblinded revealing the identity of the cheater.
Identities are not used, and there's no reliance on recourse. It's all prevention.
This is done via a fairly standard cut-and-choose algorithm where the buyer responds to several challenges with secret shares
No challenges or secret shares. A basic transaction is just what you see in the figure in section 2. A signature (of the buyer) satisfying the public key of the previous transaction, and a new public key (of the seller) that must be satisfied to spend it the next time.
They may also receive chains as long as the one they're trying to extend while they work, in which the last few "links" are links that are not in common with the chain on which they're working. These they ignore.
Right, if it's equal in length, ties are broken by keeping the earliest one received.
If it contains a double spend, then they create a "transaction" which is a proof of double spending, add it to their pool A, broadcast it, and continue work.
There's no need for reporting of "proof of double spending" like that. If the same chain contains both spends, then the block is invalid and rejected.
Same if a block didn't have enough proof-of-work. That block is invalid and rejected. There's no need to circulate a report about it. Every node could see that and reject it before relaying it.
If there are two competing chains, each containing a different version of the same transaction, with one trying to give money to one person and the other trying to give the same money to someone else, resolving which of the spends is valid is what the whole proof-of-work chain is about.
We're not "on the lookout" for double spends to sound the alarm and catch the cheater. We merely adjudicate which one of the spends is valid. Receivers of transactions must wait a few blocks to make sure that resolution has had time to complete. Would be cheaters can try and simultaneously double-spend all they want, and all they accomplish is that within a few blocks, one of the spends becomes valid and the others become invalid. Any later double-spends are immediately rejected once there's already a spend in the main chain.
Even if an earlier spend wasn't in the chain yet, if it was already in all the nodes' pools, then the second spend would be turned away by all those nodes that already have the first spend.
If the new chain is accepted, then they give up on adding their current link, dump all the transactions from pool L back into pool A (along with transactions they've received or created since starting work), eliminate from pool A those transaction records which are already part of a link in the new chain, and start work again trying to extend the new chain.
Right. They also refresh whenever a new transaction comes in, so L pretty much contains everything in A all the time.
CPU-intensive digital signature algorithm to sign the chain including the new block L.
It's a Hashcash style SHA-256 proof-of-work (partial pre-image of zero), not a signature.
Is there a mechanism to make sure that the "chain" does not consist solely of links added by just the 3 or 4 fastest nodes? 'Cause a broadcast transaction record could easily miss those 3 or 4 nodes and if it does, and those nodes continue to dominate the chain, the transaction might never get added.
If you're thinking of it as a CPU-intensive digital signing, then you may be thinking of a race to finish a long operation first and the fastest always winning.
The proof-of-work is a Hashcash style SHA-256 collision finding. It's a memoryless process where you do millions of hashes a second, with a small chance of finding one each time. The 3 or 4 fastest nodes' dominance would only be proportional to their share of the total CPU power. Anyone's chance of finding a solution at any time is proportional to their CPU power.
There will be transaction fees, so nodes will have an incentive to receive and include all the transactions they can. Nodes will eventually be compensated by transaction fees alone when the total coins created hits the pre-determined ceiling.
Also, the work requirement for adding a link to the chain should vary (again exponentially) with the number of links added to that chain in the previous week, causing the rate of coin generation (and therefore inflation) to be strictly controlled.
Right.
You need coin aggregation for this to scale. There needs to be a "provable" transaction where someone retires ten single coins and creates a new coin with denomination ten, etc.
Every transaction is one of these. Section 9, Combining and Splitting Value.
Satoshi Nakamoto
write
preview
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023
Ray Dillinger https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014859.html bear at sonic.net Sat Nov 15 02:04:21 EST 2008 Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Next message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 12:43 +0800, Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
I'll try and hurry up and release the sourcecode as soon as possible to serve as a reference to help clear up all these implementation questions.
Ray Dillinger (Bear) wrote:
When a coin is spent, the buyer and seller digitally sign a (blinded) transaction record.
Only the buyer signs, and there's no blinding.
If someone double spends, then the transaction record can be unblinded revealing the identity of the cheater.
Identities are not used, and there's no reliance on recourse. It's all prevention.
Okay, that's surprising. If you're not using buyer/seller identities, then you are not checking that a spend is being made by someone who actually is the owner of (on record as having recieved) the coin being spent.
There are three categories of identity that are useful to think about. Category one: public. Real-world identities are a matter of record and attached to every transaction.
Category two: Pseudonymous. There are persistent "identities" within the system and people can see if something was done by the same nym that did something else, but there's not necessarily any way of linking the nyms with real-world identities. Category three: unlinkably anonymous. There is no concept of identity, persistent or otherwise. No one can say or prove whether the agents involved in any transaction are the same agents as involved in any other transaction.
Are you claiming category 3 as you seem to be, or category 2? Lots of people don't distinguish between anonymous and pseudonymous protocols, so it's worth asking exactly what you mean here.
Anyway: I'll proceed on the assumption that you meant very nearly (as nearly as I can imagine, anyway) what you said, unlinkably anonymous. That means that instead of an "identity", a spender has to demonstrate knowledge of a secret known only to the real owner of the coin. One way to do this would be to have the person recieving the coin generate an asymmetric key pair, and then have half of it published with the transaction. In order to spend the coin later, s/he must demonstrate posession of the other half of the asymmetric key pair, probably by using it to sign the key provided by the new seller. So we cannot prove anything about "identity", but we can prove that the spender of the coin is someone who knows a secret that the person who recieved the coin knows.
And what you say next seems to confirm this:
No challenges or secret shares. A basic transaction is just what you see in the figure in section 2. A signature (of the buyer) satisfying the public key of the previous transaction, and a new public key (of the seller) that must be satisfied to spend it the next time.
Note, even though this doesn't involve identity per se, it still makes the agent doing the spend linkable to the agent who earlier recieved the coin, so these transactions are linkable.
In order to counteract this, the owner of the coin needs to make a transaction, indistinguishable to others from any normal transaction, in which he creates a new key pair and transfers the coin to its posessor (ie, has one sock puppet "spend" it to another). No change in real-world identity of the owner, but the transaction "linkable" to the agent who spent the coin is unlinked. For category-three unlinkability, this has to be done a random number of times - maybe one to six times?
BTW, could you please learn to use carriage returns?? Your lines are scrolling stupidly off to the right and I have to scroll to see what the heck you're saying, then edit to add carriage returns before I respond.
If it contains a double spend, then they create a "transaction" which is a proof of double spending, add it to their pool A, broadcast it, and continue work.
There's no need for reporting of "proof of double spending" like that. If the same chain contains both spends, then the block is invalid and rejected.
Same if a block didn't have enough proof-of-work. That block is invalid and rejected. There's no need to circulate a report about it. Every node could see that and reject it before relaying it.
Mmmm. I don't know if I'm comfortable with that. You're saying there's no effort to identify and exclude nodes that don't cooperate? I suspect this will lead to trouble and possible DOS attacks.
If there are two competing chains, each containing a different version of the same transaction, with one trying to give money to one person and the other trying to give the same money to someone else, resolving which of the spends is valid is what the whole proof-of-work chain is about.
Okay, when you say "same" transaction, and you're talking about transactions that are obviously different, you mean a double spend, right? Two transactions signed with the same key?
We're not "on the lookout" for double spends to sound the alarm and catch the cheater. We merely adjudicate which one of the spends is valid. Receivers of transactions must wait a few blocks to make sure that resolution has had time to complete.
Until.... until what? How does anybody know when a transaction has become irrevocable? Is "a few" blocks three? Thirty? A hundred? Does it depend on the number of nodes? Is it logarithmic or linear in number of nodes?
Would be cheaters can try and simultaneously double-spend all they want, and all they accomplish is that within a few blocks, one of the spends becomes valid and the others become invalid.
But in the absence of identity, there's no downside to them if spends become invalid, if they've already recieved the goods they double-spent for (access to website, download, whatever). The merchants are left holding the bag with "invalid" coins, unless they wait that magical "few blocks" (and how can they know how many?) before treating the spender as having paid.
The consumers won't do this if they spend their coin and it takes an hour to clear before they can do what they spent their coin on. The merchants won't do it if there's no way to charge back a customer when they find the that their coin is invalid because the customer has doublespent.
Even if an earlier spend wasn't in the chain yet, if it was already in all the nodes' pools, then the second spend would be turned away by all those nodes that already have the first spend.
So there's a possibility of an early catch when the broadcasts of the initial simultaneous spends interfere with each other. I assume here that the broadcasts are done by the sellers, since the buyer has a possible disincentive to broadly disseminate spends.
If the new chain is accepted, then they give up on adding their current link ... and start work again trying to extend the new chain.
Right. They also refresh whenever a new transaction comes in, so L pretty much contains everything in A all the time.
Okay, that's a big difference between a proof of work that takes a huge set number of CPU cycles and a proof of work that takes a tiny number of CPU cycles but has a tiny chance of success. You can change the data set while working, and it doesn't mean you need to start over. This is good in this case, as it means nobody has to hold recently recieved transactions out of the link they're working on.
Is there a mechanism to make sure that the "chain" does not consist solely of links added by just the 3 or 4 fastest nodes?
If you're thinking of it as a CPU-intensive digital signing, then you may be thinking of a race to finish a long operation first and the fastest always winning.
Right. That was the misconception I was working with. Again, the difference between a proof taking a huge set number of CPU cycles and a proof that takes a tiny number of CPU cycles but has a tiny chance of success.
Anyone's chance of finding a solution at any time is proportional to their CPU power.
It's like a random variation in the work factor; in this way it works in your favor.
There will be transaction fees, so nodes will have an incentive to receive and include all the transactions they can. Nodes will eventually be compensated by transaction fees alone when the total coins created hits the pre-determined ceiling.
I don't understand how "transaction fees" would work, and how the money would find its way from the agents doing transactions to those running the network. But the economic effect is the same (albeit somewhat randomized) if adding a link to the chain allows the node to create a coin, so I would stick with that.
Also, be aware that the compute power of different nodes can be expected to vary by two orders of magnitude at any given moment in history.
			Bear
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023
Satoshi Nakamoto https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014860.html satoshi at vistomail.com Sat Nov 15 13:02:00 EST 2008 Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Next message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Ray Dillinger wrote:
One way to do this would be to have the person recieving the coin generate an asymmetric key pair, and then have half of it published with the transaction. In order to spend the coin later, s/he must demonstrate posession of the other half of the asymmetric key pair, probably by using it to sign the key provided by the new seller.
Right, it's ECC digital signatures. A new key pair is used for every transaction.
It's not pseudonymous in the sense of nyms identifying people, but it is at least a little pseudonymous in that the next action on a coin can be identified as being from the owner of that coin.
Mmmm. I don't know if I'm comfortable with that. You're saying there's no effort to identify and exclude nodes that don't cooperate? I suspect this will lead to trouble and possible DOS attacks.
There is no reliance on identifying anyone. As you've said, it's futile and can be trivially defeated with sock puppets.
The credential that establishes someone as real is the ability to supply CPU power.
Until.... until what? How does anybody know when a transaction has become irrevocable? Is "a few" blocks three? Thirty? A hundred? Does it depend on the number of nodes? Is it logarithmic or linear in number of nodes?
Section 11 calculates the worst case under attack. Typically, 5 or 10 blocks is enough for that. If you're selling something that doesn't merit a network-scale attack to steal it, in practice you could cut it closer.
But in the absence of identity, there's no downside to them if spends become invalid, if they've already received the goods they double-spent for (access to website, download, whatever). The merchants are left holding the bag with "invalid" coins, unless they wait that magical "few blocks" (and how can they know how many?) before treating the spender as having paid.
The consumers won't do this if they spend their coin and it takes an hour to clear before they can do what they spent their coin on. The merchants won't do it if there's no way to charge back a customer when they find the that their coin is invalid because the customer has doublespent.
This is a version 2 problem that I believe can be solved fairly satisfactorily for most applications.
The race is to spread your transaction on the network first. Think 6 degrees of freedom -- it spreads exponentially. It would only take something like 2 minutes for a transaction to spread widely enough that a competitor starting late would have little chance of grabbing very many nodes before the first one is overtaking the whole network. During those 2 minutes, the merchant's nodes can be watching for a double-spent transaction. The double-spender would not be able to blast his alternate transaction out to the world without the merchant getting it, so he has to wait before starting.
If the real transaction reaches 90% and the double-spent tx reaches 10%, the double-spender only gets a 10% chance of not paying, and 90% chance his money gets spent. For almost any type of goods, that's not going to be worth it for the scammer.
Information based goods like access to website or downloads are non-fencible. Nobody is going to be able to make a living off stealing access to websites or downloads. They can go to the file sharing networks to steal that. Most instant-access products aren't going to have a huge incentive to steal.
If a merchant actually has a problem with theft, they can make the customer wait 2 minutes, or wait for something in e-mail, which many already do. If they really want to optimize, and it's a large download, they could cancel the download in the middle if the transaction comes back double-spent. If it's website access, typically it wouldn't be a big deal to let the customer have access for 5 minutes and then cut off access if it's rejected. Many such sites have a free trial anyway.
Satoshi Nakamoto
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023
Nicolas Williams https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014864.html Nicolas.Williams at sun.com Mon Nov 17 16:54:28 EST 2008 Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Next message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:04:21PM -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 12:43 +0800, Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
If someone double spends, then the transaction record can be unblinded revealing the identity of the cheater.
Identities are not used, and there's no reliance on recourse. It's all prevention.
Okay, that's surprising. If you're not using buyer/seller identities, then you are not checking that a spend is being made by someone who actually is the owner of (on record as having recieved) the coin being spent.
How do identities help? It's supposed to be anonymous cash, right? And say you identify a double spender after the fact, then what? Perhaps you're looking at a disposable ID. Or perhaps you can't chase them down.
Double spend detection needs to be real-time or near real-time.
Nico
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023
James A. Donald https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014866.html jamesd at echeque.com Mon Nov 17 20:26:31 EST 2008 Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Next message: ADMIN: end of bitcoin discussion for now Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Nicolas Williams wrote:
How do identities help? It's supposed to be anonymous cash, right?
Actually no. It is however supposed to be pseudonymous, so dinging someone's reputation still does not help much.
And say you identify a double spender after the fact, then what? Perhaps you're looking at a disposable ID. Or perhaps you can't chase them down.
Double spend detection needs to be real-time or near real-time.
Near real time means we have to use UDP or equivalent, rather than TCP or equivalent, and we have to establish an approximate consensus, not necessarily the final consensus, not necessarily exact agreement, but close to it, in a reasonably small number of round trips.
reply