[Cryptography] Proposal of a fair contract signing protocol

Allen allenpmd at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 19:03:17 EDT 2016

> AFAICT, MK’s argument hinges on trying to draw a distinction between
> actually being committed and merely having made a promise to commit, or
> something like that.  But this seems to me like a distinction without a
> difference, mere wordplay, like being engaged to be engaged.  To me, being
> “committed to X” means that you are in a state where there will be some
> negative consequence if you do not do X.  Whether you call that “committed”
> or “promised” or “frabnobulated” is irrelevant.

To beat an almost dead horse, this all goes back to the fact that the
proposed protocol does not define an unambiguous algorithm to check if a
valid contract exists or not.  Without a precise definition of a valid
contract and a method to check it, the protocol is incomplete and attempts
to analyze it have to make a lot of guesses and assumptions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160623/85abffa6/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list