4 ms·
I like seeing proposals like this that use Bitcoin as essentially a protocol layer (and in this case value store). 40KB anything is not going anywhere near the
by vessenes 14y ago
I like seeing proposals like this that use Bitcoin as essentially a protocol layer (and in this case value store).
40KB anything is not going anywhere near the blockchain soon; this is going to be a no-go for the dev team and miners.
There are also a bunch of ancillary questions, like can these zero knowledge proofs (presumably non-interactive ones) be combined up with the rest of the blockchain to be turing-complete? Also a no-go.
Anyway, this is cool. Given current Bitcoin decision making processes, I would expect it would need a solid year of great adoption in some sort of side-car process before it had a shot at main blockchain integration, and even then, it would have to get drilled down to 1 or 2k of data max.
- brianberns 14y agoI know what Turing-complete means, but can you explain how the blockchain could become Turing-complete, and why that would be a bad thing?
- limmeau 14y agoIt would be inconvenient if the validity of a blockchain became undecidable, or even just NP-hard.
- jlgreco 14y agoI'm not sure how it would happen, but if you could get miners to perform arbitrary computation for you, as a consequence of processing zerocoin transactions, then people might decide to abuse that and generate tons of otherwise unnecessary transactions.
- nanofortnight 14y agoThe transaction verification language[1] is not turing complete, and only provides one bit of information (accept/reject transaction). Currently almost all transactions scripts just do public-key verification. [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
- anologwintermut 14y agoNon Interactive Zero knowledge proofs as used in that paper are just a set of mathematical equations and values that you check the equations hold for. They are not even close to turing complete.