[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "do hash" unnecessary?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 10:26 AM 4/1/98 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Hal" == Hal Finney <hal@rain.org> writes:
> Hal> I wonder if this is really necessary. How hard would it be
> Hal> for the verifier to hash everything it sees in the sequence?
> Hal> How long are sequences likely to be? I wouldn't think they
>
> I agree that it may be unnecessary. I'd like to leave it there in
>the spec until we have more experience.
One thing is clear to me, as I implement code:
the opcodes in a (sequence...) assume one particular reduction engine but
you might not choose to implement your reduction engine that way.
Therefore, you're free to treat a (sequence...) as just a bag of objects to
do with as you choose. I don't know if we know the one best execution
engine for reduction. A stack machine (a la the current opcodes) is one
machine. Matt's KN is another. My own is currently different from either
of those.
OTOH, I would like to hear from a real developer in constrained environments
(e.g., smart cards) about what kind of input would make his job easiest.
For the rest of us, optimization isn't as important.
- Carl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQCVAwUBNSLZWRN3Wx8QwqUtAQEokgQAkBCZ1YRe50IstZj2ndfL6FTgVi3TbF5K
aNdUzYN7ryOcoS4DKh3e/ww6W535MXWQ7+dr81uvxozRiJzW9553pw1/aq4bjqwD
2An+sgOIX+1dGBM/gMy6217Rmh+scD1CxObGBcp0YhJWJ6uwYoPtdSRzN1dC5tew
KJBxcBNtdC0=
=eb7y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|207 Grindall Street PGP 08FF BA05 599B 49D2 23C6 6FFD 36BA D342 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
References: