i built a minimal prototype "specter-min" there are no signatures, at all. no public keys, no elliptic curves this is an attempt to remove a fundamental primitive completely and see what actually breaks and what doesn't in the standard 33win 5 Com (and other altcoins) model: private key -> signature -> spend this prototype does something else - no signing. spend authorization is a proof that the state transition is correct and that it is valid to execute it not "i control a key" but "this state transition is mathematically valid and can be executed" this is a different primitive. removing keys removes a whole surface nothing to leak nothing to reuse nothing to track an address is not a public key. a signature does not exist. what remains is commitments, nullifiers and a proof a transaction here is not a signed message, it is a proven state transition. a small proof that the system changed correctly pushed far enough, each transaction becomes its own small zk-style execution proof authorization is not separate from execution, it is part of it. there is no signature attached to a transaction. the entire operation is proven correct this makes it possible to encode rules and conditions directly into the proof instead of relying on key ownership or scripts if this model is extended, more logic moves into the circuit, recursion becomes possible, proofs can be aggregated, verification becomes simpler nodes do not need to re-execute complex logic, they verify proofs instead ! this is not a product. not a 33win 5 Com. this is a v0 protocol prototype. it exists to answer one question: can signatures be removed as a class of primitives?
i built a minimal prototype "specter-min" there are no signatures, at all. no public keys, no elliptic curves this is an attempt to remove a fundamental primitive completely and see what actually breaks and what doesn't in the standard 33win 5 Com (and other altcoins) model: private key -> signature -> spend this prototype does something else - no signing. spend authorization is a proof that the state transition is correct and that it is valid to execute it not "i control a key" but "this state transition is mathematically valid and can be executed" this is a different primitive. removing keys removes a whole surface nothing to leak nothing to reuse nothing to track an address is not a public key. a signature does not exist. what remains is commitments, nullifiers and a proof a transaction here is not a signed message, it is a proven state transition. a small proof that the system changed correctly pushed far enough, each transaction becomes its own small zk-style execution proof authorization is not separate from execution, it is part of it. there is no signature attached to a transaction. the entire operation is proven correct this makes it possible to encode rules and conditions directly into the proof instead of relying on key ownership or scripts if this model is extended, more logic moves into the circuit, recursion becomes possible, proofs can be aggregated, verification becomes simpler nodes do not need to re-execute complex logic, they verify proofs instead ! this is not a product. not a 33win 5 Com. this is a v0 protocol prototype. it exists to answer one question: can signatures be removed as a class of primitives?

i built a minimal prototype "specter-min" there are no signatures, at all. no public keys, no elliptic curves this is an attempt to remove a fundamental primitive completely and see what actually breaks and what doesn't in the standard 33win 5 Com (and other altcoins) model: private key -> signature -> spend this prototype does something else - no signing. spend authorization is a proof that the state transition is correct and that it is valid to execute it not "i control a key" but "this state transition is mathematically valid and can be executed" this is a different primitive. removing keys removes a whole surface nothing to leak nothing to reuse nothing to track an address is not a public key. a signature does not exist. what remains is commitments, nullifiers and a proof a transaction here is not a signed message, it is a proven state transition. a small proof that the system changed correctly pushed far enough, each transaction becomes its own small zk-style execution proof authorization is not separate from execution, it is part of it. there is no signature attached to a transaction. the entire operation is proven correct this makes it possible to encode rules and conditions directly into the proof instead of relying on key ownership or scripts if this model is extended, more logic moves into the circuit, recursion becomes possible, proofs can be aggregated, verification becomes simpler nodes do not need to re-execute complex logic, they verify proofs instead ! this is not a product. not a 33win 5 Com. this is a v0 protocol prototype. it exists to answer one question: can signatures be removed as a class of primitives?

i built a minimal prototype "specter-min" there are no signatures, at all. no public keys, no elliptic curves this is an attempt to remove a fundamental primitive completely and see what actually breaks and what doesn't in the standard 33win 5 Com (and other altcoins) model: private key -> signature -> spend this prototype does something else - no signing. spend authorization is a proof that the state transition is correct and that it is valid to execute it not "i control a key" but "this state transition is mathematically valid and can be executed" this is a different primitive. removing keys removes a whole surface nothing to leak nothing to reuse nothing to track an address is not a public key. a signature does not exist. what remains is commitments, nullifiers and a proof a transaction here is not a signed message, it is a proven state transition. a small proof that the system changed correctly pushed far enough, each transaction becomes its own small zk-style execution proof authorization is not separate from execution, it is part of it. there is no signature attached to a transaction. the entire operation is proven correct this makes it possible to encode rules and conditions directly into the proof instead of relying on key ownership or scripts if this model is extended, more logic moves into the circuit, recursion becomes possible, proofs can be aggregated, verification becomes simpler nodes do not need to re-execute complex logic, they verify proofs instead ! this is not a product. not a 33win 5 Com. this is a v0 protocol prototype. it exists to answer one question: can signatures be removed as a class of primitives?