Also you didn't answer but I'm surmising you mean BLS for *everything* not only PoK? Because the alternative is bad in two ways, first the obvious of mapping privkeys between groups and second because if schnorr in transaction signatures you can still leak a large amount of data as per ajtowns' idea.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
Haha BLS everything of course. I can’t even imagine how you could do it only for the PoK. Any equivalence proof between curves will be a PoK so there’d be no point in the BLS in the first place.
I like “purecoin”. Although I also think it’s not a great direction. It’d still make way more sense than bip444. It would be interesting to present a possible if not realistic soft fork that actually would significantly reduce the amount of data embedding that could be achieved per vbyte. Then a rational debate could be had.
Point taken about locktimes. I don’t think anyone would be in favour of disabling lightning. You’d probably have to leave the spammers with that one.
I agree it would be nice to prevent this somewhat formally, because I think there's some quite woolly thinking about "it's impossible to prevent data" without concrete analysis. Btw, even purecoin suffers also from amount fields being plaintext: though it's tough, a well funded 'spammer' can probably get a number of bytes of data on chain with a "split and then recombine a large single utxo" strategy. It's an extremely low data embedding rate on a per tx basis, but it's not nothing, assuming we succeeded in getting rid of locktimes, and pubkey and sig embedding. If we encrypted amounts we might hit the old 'zk implies randomness implies embedding' problem again.
'present' not 'prevent'