 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
The spending of the multisig output is the point at which the funds become spent by the group and respendable by the new owner.
how to determine that someone has spent a transaction? apart from a transaction itself being spend, is it possible to determine if a transaction was spent by a specific address viewing only the blockchain? or can it only be understood that the tx has not been respent yet, which can require the forced mixin? aside, can the chain be parsed in order to determine only that a transaction has been spent, when another transaction attempting to mixin with it is completed. if someone mixed with a previous multisig tx, is it possible to determine that that multisig tx was spent, ie: invalid for mixing? It makes no sense to release the multisig early because then whatever benefit is being provided by the multisig (2FA, dispute resolution, etc.) has been lost.
can you expand this please? i dont understand  Normally with ring signatures the fact that a transaction output is used by another tranasction does not mean that the output has been spent, only that it has been [/i]possibly-spent[/i]. The new transaction may actually be spending a different output but using that one as a mixin. But without the ability to spend a multisig with ring signatures, you lose this measure of privacy.
then how can the chain be parsed to determine that a tx has been spent, other than that a new output has been formed from the previous input which would mean that the original multisig took place? |
|
|
|
Partially, and in fact I suggested this exact work-around. But the fact of the funds having been spent is still visible, and the additional steps will slow down transactions and increase transaction costs. The latter is not really a big deal for marketplace use but it is bad for a 2FA wallet.
how can it be determined if funds are spent or not? would this be local to multisig transactions only? Apparently it is possible but the details need to be worked out. I don't have an answer on how to fix it, and it isn't something I've worked on at all. I'm just going by what was said on the Bytecoin technical thread (and possible the CN forum if I didn't imagine that part).
will look at that thread, thank you! |
|
|
|
Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).
Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.
I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.
Yes, thank you for that. more, what can ring signature multisig provide that multigateway/standard multisig cannot? It is simply the same thing as regular ring sigs, except applied to multisig transactions. Without ring sigs, the source of funds can be traced backward in the blockchain and the use of funds (both the fact of them having been spent and where they go) can be traced forward. So for example if you are using a web-based wallet or some other wallet with (zero mix) multisig-based 2FA, all of your payments would be traceable. can this be remedied by just sending any funds to be spent to be in a multisig to a new wallet with a mandatory mixin flag, then to one more new wallet, no flag, so that will allow non-ring signature multisig to be created? then, when spent and 2fa is authenticated, the funds go to the chosen wallet owned by receiver with the mandatory mixin flagged. then to the final destination from there. then, the funding is untraceable, no? uses more wallets, and tx's, but does it work? this would use 3 wallets on the sender, and 2 for the receiver. what can be changed in the protocol to make a ring signature multisig? is this a good description of what can be used here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/289.pdf |
|
|
|
Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).
Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.
I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.
Yes, thank you for that. more, what can ring signature multisig provide that multigateway/standard multisig cannot? MGW uses multisig and it is critical for distributing the gateway function
does this mean multisig will be available for anyone to use in the supernet through multigateway, or that multisig is needed for integrating with supernet? no fees will be greater than 0.1%, actually 1/1024 other than for gambling stuff. That could be at the 1% level
thank you for correction, lots of reading still to do  I made a few wallpapers, please let me know if this is welcomed? Here is a preview. low quality for upload to show only, sorry. hi quality in mega file:  Here is a mega link if you would like, it's only 5 wallpapers in a 7zip file (pictures found on internet). 3 are 1920x1080, 2 are 1600x900 Download if you would like, or feel you can trust. perhaps someone trusted can verify? : https://mega.co.nz/#!mlUlzKjT!zpdq3GxbE0CJubleveTc6WXGLQ0S1p1TDVmdCX7Dt1Menjoy!  |
|
|
|
TY, Dr! This makes a lot of sense Are you thinking about using multisig? Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage. What do you think ? I think its usable, but no rush. Maybe many months before needed, because supernet will give access to regular multisig. I think jl777 said it's only 1% fee in his paper, so not much of an issue yet. Does Bytecoin have non-ring signature multisig? Maybe ring signature multisig would be possible for supernet? It's important
what can it be used for, can multisig with ring signatures work? |
|
|
|
This won't affect mixing since we will still have ring signatures above this block going forward correct?
You can mixin with transactions that is as under checkoint as after checkpoin - no difference, it's not affect. Any of them still could be usen for mixin. Can it be detected that they were mixins from the part of the blockchain that was pruned or no? Do you have more detailed information about your transaction structure? I can't make much information from your nice powerpoints, sorry. Transactions that lay before checkpoins and have pruned ring signatures could be spent, or could be not spent yet. No matter. I have very similar transaction structure, and it refferes to other transaction's outputs with the same way as any CN - amount + index. So you know exactly from wich transaction your input's selected for mixins. So answering to your question - yes, it may be detected, and there is no difference since both part of blockchain contatin as spent transactions, as unspent. TY, Dr! This makes a lot of sense Are you thinking about using multisig? |
|
|
|
This won't affect mixing since we will still have ring signatures above this block going forward correct?
You can mixin with transactions that is as under checkoint as after checkpoin - no difference, it's not affect. Any of them still could be usen for mixin. Can it be detected that they were mixins from the part of the blockchain that was pruned or no? Do you have more detailed information about your transaction structure? I can't make much information from your nice powerpoints, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
