<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html lang="de" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title></title><style type="text/css">html,body{background-color:#fff;color:#333;line-height:1.4;font-family:sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,Trebuchet MS;}</style></head><body><p>I did not read everything in this small amount of time. But I want to praise you, it is very good to show simple examples for simple minds like me - even in a complex paper.<br><br>One problem to solve is not just two persons doing business offline from the network and then are reconnecting. One big problem is the "time delusion", or basically that in a time centric system on one end of the world a block can be produced, but on another end the block before was not even produced. F.E. Bitcoin is "Proof of Work", mandatory time centric. But it is a huge thing, when time is not the same in every place of the chain.<br><br>It is "global networkS".<br><br>Thank you for the cool paper!<br><br>-------------<br>Quote:<br>4. The transaction is finalized instantly between Alice and Bob, without<br>requiring an online check-in with a global network.<br>5. Later, when either party reconnects to the network, their state synchronizes to ensure continuity, but the transaction remains fully valid<br>regardless.<br>----------------</p>
<div ></div>
<p>Cryptskii via cryptography schrieb am 13.04.2025 15:53 (GMT +02:00):</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:HO5tVf0DWnWvGYhwb9XRsIIvnpuSBL3B0tRPoN1OV1_2mUlufyuQhShXMqKVpq1hgMi3MI4gXef2shBANW6T2ylJERCQRTjiT4tYqSuy-7c=@proton.me">
<pre>Greetings Punks,
moderator, sir/madame I understand that this may not fit in with the political
criteria, I just thought
that it may interest you simply because of what it solves, and the fact that some
of the time solving this problem was spent in this mailing list for the original
solution or what led to it anyway with bitcoin. If it doesn't, and you do not
forward it I completely understand.
My work primarily has been revolving around scaling the technology in a pure
trustless manner. I've also been working on post quantum stuff for bitcoin.
Stealth addresses introduced by Peter Todd, deterministic random walks as zero
knowledge proofs, and a lot of experimenting with state channels, both bilateral
and unilateral, as my concept of self validating state transitions, and balance
variance embedded led to what I came up with in this paper, which is the
"Decentralized State Machine".
appreciate any in all feedback and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintances,
<a href="https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/592" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/592">https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/592</a>
Cryptskii
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
<a href="https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography">https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography</a>
</pre>
</blockquote></body></html>