Bitcoin Forum
November 09, 2024, 11:06:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Are off-chain transactions necessary to keep Bitcoin unbroken?  (Read 2597 times)
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1160


View Profile
August 19, 2013, 04:23:50 PM
 #21

However today this is limited to a single entity.  It only works if you and your receiver are both on MtGox.  However look forward a couple years and say you have a MtGox account and someone else has a coinbase tx.  In theory MtGox and Coinbase could extend reciprocal lines of credit so MtGox notifies coinbase and coinbase instantly reflects your new balance.  Once a day MtGox and coinbase "settle" the books with a single blockchain tx.  Just to be clear this does NOT currently exist but it could.  Eventually a network of these entities could exist.  In someways this resembles a banking network with one SIGNIFICANT difference.  Today you can't be your own fiat bank (well at least not with any reasonable cost) but you can choose to be your own Bitcoin bank.  All you need the ability to run a full node and willingness to put all tx on the blockchain.

Don't forget that because Bitcoin is based on cryptography, you can audit that Bitcoin bank and prove they, for instance, hold funds they claim they do, whereas in the real world you just can't get absolute, mathematical proof.

inputs.io, for example, have told me they are planning on implementing proof-of-ownership soon. Essentially that means they will prove to their customers that the funds held by them on their behalf really are backed 100% by coins on the blockchain. Of course, that doesn't stop them from taking the funds, but it means if they do they will be quickly caught. In the future mechanisms can be implemented like fidelity bonds and trusted hardware that make even stealing the money unprofitable - much like Bitcoin itself is designed so that miners have economic incentives to "mine honestly"

FWIW I keep a few BTC worth of "day-to-day" spending money at inputs.io, as well as easywallet, even without any auditing. To me the privacy is worth the risk of the funds getting stolen. (I lost about $100 worth at instawallet)

n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 06:48:43 PM
 #22

One interesting challenge is— given all these super snazzy external systems (which will exist whether we like them or not!) what will keep demand for blockchain space up high enough that transaction fees are great enough to actually support adequate POW security?

mind = blown

Yet more evidence that Satoshi comes from the future and the 1MB hard limit might actually be an optimal number Wink

And circa 2040 we'll all be proactively soliciting gambling services to please use the blockchain as a notification mechanism.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 10:24:50 PM
 #23

Yet more evidence that Satoshi comes from the future and the 1MB hard limit might actually be an optimal number
So why did he start it out at 16 MB?
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1160


View Profile
August 19, 2013, 10:37:19 PM
 #24

Yet more evidence that Satoshi comes from the future and the 1MB hard limit might actually be an optimal number
So why did he start it out at 16 MB?

32MiB, and the way that limit was implemented suggests it was an accident that it even existed and he hadn't thought through the implications at the time.

Rule of thumb: believe it or not, Satoshi was just a smart guy like you or I, he was far from infallible.

n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 11:03:12 PM
 #25

Yet more evidence that Satoshi comes from the future and the 1MB hard limit might actually be an optimal number
So why did he start it out at 16 MB?

He wanted to give future generations something to argue about on Bitcointalk, and figured some archeological blocksize ambiguity was just the ticket.  And if you record his whitepaper onto vinyl and play it backwards, it's also revealed that he planted the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head in Toluca.
astutiumRob
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 19, 2013, 11:46:03 PM
 #26

Some existing off-chain transactions now
Internal accounting systems, irrespective of the currency, have no need to be on the blockchain anyway.
If 'size' is a worry, then the ability to merge addresses within the same wallet, and to discard addresses and more importantly have a point-in-time-balance would solve the chainsize issue and download time.

www.astutium.com - domains | hosting | vps | servers | cloud - proud to accept bitcoins. UK colocation for BFL and KNC ASICs in Tier3+ DC
Register Domains with BTC
Want to make some bitcoins ? Miner on ebay | Buy GH/s
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 02:07:13 PM
 #27

Some existing off-chain transactions now
Internal accounting systems, irrespective of the currency, have no need to be on the blockchain anyway.
If 'size' is a worry, then the ability to merge addresses within the same wallet, and to discard addresses and more importantly have a point-in-time-balance would solve the chainsize issue and download time.


I suggested something like that last year. Apparently, that idea has been around and discussed several times. Bitcoin doesn't work that way, and I get it now. Merging addresses means sending all your coins (gathering all unspent outputs) and sending it all to another address or into one specific address.

Not many people are going to do that. And you can't ask them to. They will do it on their own, but they don't need to for amounts larger than 1 bitcoin-day.

sidazhang
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 09, 2014, 04:27:13 PM
 #28

However today this is limited to a single entity.  It only works if you and your receiver are both on MtGox.  However look forward a couple years and say you have a MtGox account and someone else has a coinbase tx.  In theory MtGox and Coinbase could extend reciprocal lines of credit so MtGox notifies coinbase and coinbase instantly reflects your new balance.  Once a day MtGox and coinbase "settle" the books with a single blockchain tx.  Just to be clear this does NOT currently exist but it could.  Eventually a network of these entities could exist.  In someways this resembles a banking network with one SIGNIFICANT difference.  Today you can't be your own fiat bank (well at least not with any reasonable cost) but you can choose to be your own Bitcoin bank.  All you need the ability to run a full node and willingness to put all tx on the blockchain.

Don't forget that because Bitcoin is based on cryptography, you can audit that Bitcoin bank and prove they, for instance, hold funds they claim they do, whereas in the real world you just can't get absolute, mathematical proof.

inputs.io, for example, have told me they are planning on implementing proof-of-ownership soon. Essentially that means they will prove to their customers that the funds held by them on their behalf really are backed 100% by coins on the blockchain. Of course, that doesn't stop them from taking the funds, but it means if they do they will be quickly caught. In the future mechanisms can be implemented like fidelity bonds and trusted hardware that make even stealing the money unprofitable - much like Bitcoin itself is designed so that miners have economic incentives to "mine honestly"

FWIW I keep a few BTC worth of "day-to-day" spending money at inputs.io, as well as easywallet, even without any auditing. To me the privacy is worth the risk of the funds getting stolen. (I lost about $100 worth at instawallet)

Peter, how does this proof of ownership work. Does it require the wallet to disclose all the addresses that they own so that people can check?
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!