[Cryptography] Proposal of a fair contract signing protocol

[mok-kong shen]

Am 25.06.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Allen:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, mok-kong shen
> <mok-kong.shen at t-online.de <mailto:mok-kong.shen at t-online.de>> wrote:
>
>     Did you read what in step 1 Alice promises to do if Bob commits? If Bob
>     commits in step 2 and Alice doesn't do step 3 then she breaks her
>     promise and Bob could suit her. Note once again that if a contract
>     doesn't come into being for technical or human reasons, my definition
>     of unfairness is never touched upon, for the definition assumes a
>     valid document, i.e. step 3 is completed.
>
>
> I read what you specifically said constitutes a valid contract: the
> published outputs from Step 3.  Now you want to amend your definition to
> say that Step 1 constitutes an enforceable "promise" by Alice?  Under
> your amended definition, if Step 1 constitutes an enforceable "promise",
> then after Step 1, only Alice is bound and Bob is not.  That is pretty
> clearly an unfair protocol.

To what is Alice bound? In step 1 Alice has only signed X, which taken
alone is nothing, isn't it? After step 1, Bob is certainly not bound,
for he may or may not accept Alice's offer. Where is unfairness? Note
once again that my definition of fairness applies only to a completely
finished processing, i.e. step 3 is done.

M. K. Shen
>
> From the beginning, this proposed protocol has been ambiguous,
> non-specific and incomplete.  I personally believe that any effort to
> complete the protocol by making it specific, unambiguous and complete
> will simply demonstrate that, without relying on a third party, it is
> not possible to construct a "fair" protocol in the sense that no party
> is bound while the other is not, that at no time does the completion of
> the contract depend on the action of only one party which he or she may
> defer or fail to complete, and that at all times when a valid contract
> exists, both parties are equally able to enforce it.  If you would like
> to repost the entire proposed protocol, making it 100% specific,
> unambiguous and complete, with every single condition or combination of
> conditions that constitute a valid contract fully specified, including
> all inputs and complete abbreviated tests for validity, then I'll look
> at it one more time.  But please make sure it complete, fully specified
> and works as advertised.