Hello,
If I fully understand the need for anonymous transaction, there's *a lot* of cases when you do want to be authentified and to send a message with your transaction. With bitcoin, I imagine a system like the following:
There's also a need for a bank account ID that you can easily remember.
Let's say that my bitcoin bank is ploum.net. My id could be ploum.net/ploum
If my friend "Joe" (which has an account on bitcoin.com) want to pay me 5BTC for a party, in his banking software, he just put :
Receiver :
http://ploum.net/ploumAmount : 5
Message : thanks for the party buddy
What will happen then is the following :
Bitcoin.com
http://ploum.net/ploum------------- -----------
New transaction
From Joe Pal (
http://bitcoin.com/joe )
Message : Thanks for the party buddy
-------->
Replying with new bitcoin adress
15SCCTDK9xcZyKFWXsPRXYS9s1m3Mikcxs
<---------
Using the bitcoin adress to pay 5BTC
This makes it at least as useful as the current banking system. Even more because account number are now a simple URL.
Advantages:
-------------
+ Easy to use, easy to give your account ID to someone.
+ Hide completely the ugly bitcoin adress from end user sight.
+ Allow to transmit message
+ Could also be used anonymously (for example, by going with a web browser to
http://ploum.net/ploum, you can receive a bitcoin adress that you can use manually)
+ Decentralized. Anyone with a http server can implement his own bitcoin bank compatible with the system.
Disadvantages:
----------------
- No real authentification (anybody can fake Joe Pal and pay for him. But does it make sense to forbid that ?)
- Someone using the bitcoin adress manually could use it multiple times and you will always see the same message. But the client might display only the total received by a bitcoin adress, not each transaction.
Question :
-----------
Is there already discussions about doing that ?
Is there any standardization on the communication between ploum.net and bitcoin.com ?
Did I missed something ?
