Bitcoin Forum

deleted

Forethought.

You're leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

interesting

Reserved
following

the problem i see is that there is no more any plausible deniybility for receiving payments. this can be important if any gov decides that they want backlist addresses.

but i like the idea! maybe just let the sending address decides how many keys (and which) are required to send those coins? for me its an essential cryptocoin feature to need more keys to send money (but companies can easily build this on top of a minimalistic coin - it isnt just that secure)

Reserved

Listening

lets see

Very interesting.

Let's see what you can do, OP.  :)

Sounds interesting. Something new.

Wouldn't you be throwing out some necessary features?

reserved

I'm listening :)

How do we send transactions in anonymous p2p-network if not by broadcasting to all nodes?

Sounds like challenge, wishing luck!

I rather like it.  It does take out a bit of the anonymity, since you have a return path for the recipient with every single transaction pair, but it does make the transactions themselves more audit-able. I think businesses might actually find this concept more appealing, since they can validate things like refunds with a customer much more easily rather than having a customer say "No, I never got it."

this is not true. a broadcasted transaction is no guarantee that it goes into a block.

btw. why not just broadcast it half-signed and let his client display a message?

reserved

I was thinking the same thing, or even have both clients send as different requests one for a send and one for a receive and let the miners hold a second smaller block chain of theses types of transactions that rotate over afew hours/days to release lost coins, wrong address etc... if you let the client do pop ups you could run the risk of someone spamming other wallets with requests clogging up the network

Sounds very interesting. Please keep us updated with further news.

Reserved

reserved, ready for sheercoin! :)

Sounds good.

Reserved, the double sign transaction was a good idea  ;)

I love the idea, OP.

By the way, why does everyone post "reserved"?

Just in case, consider this my "reserved" post. haha :P

I think this is a great start. The concept of double signing transactions, while at first blush may seem to conflict the minimalist ethos of Sheercoin, is in fact a key feature as you suggest. As someone said above, it kills plausible deniability regarding receiving payments, but this coin clearly isn't seeking to be all things to all people.

When reading about Sheercoin (S?) it immediately reminded me of this post from a couple days ago:

http://codesuppository.blogspot.com.ar/2013/12/work-in-progress.html?m=1

Visualizing just how much dust and blockchain spam there is out there had an impact on me. I think a very important part of Sheercoin will be finding ways of cutting down on this spam and dust to limit the size of the blockchain from day 1. Have you considered implementing the coin with a method of pruning spent outputs? Perhaps there could be an even more aggressive pruning mechanism where dust gets pruned, or all transactions older than a year or two get pruned automatically (but this is dangerous territory).

Another idea is to consider significant figures (s.f.) in transactions. Even if the currency has, say, a billion units and 100 million subunits, there never really is a good reason to use all those digits in any given transaction. For example, say I buy a tv for 1.23BTC. It makes sense to make the transaction for 1.23BTC (3 s.f.) or even 1.234BTC (4 s.f.), but it really is unnecessary to make the transaction for 1.23456789 (9 s.f.), as the least significant digit (lsd) is only one billionth of the most significant digit (msd). 4 s.f. should be sufficient for any transaction. Therefore, the algo could have miners automatically drop any digits beyond the 4th msd (so, 1234 or 1.234 or 0.1234 or 0.0001234) before including it in a block.

Beyond satisfying my OCD need for neater transactions, what would be the benefit? Well, paired with a (ideally, dynamic, or market based) transaction fee, it would mean accounts would tend not to have a bunch of dust. Why? Say the transaction fee is current 1S. If you want to send 0.000000001S, you'll have to pay 1 billion times more in transaction fees, so that will be uncommon. But also, since the transaction fee is dynamic, and transactions only have 3-4 s.f., usually addresses will only contain significant figures just a few digits beyond the transaction fee digit, the rest will be zeros. Does this make sense?

EDIT: Capitalization, punctuation.