Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2019, 04:20:52 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][SHC]Pre-Launch - Sheercoin, the minimalist cryptocurrency  (Read 3722 times)
maraoz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 12:09:50 AM
 #1

Introduction
Hi all. I'm the developer of http://www.proofofexistence.com/, and a collaborator in the chromawallet colored coin wallet project (http://chromawallet.com/). I'm quite new to altcoins but have some experience developing bitcoin-related apps.

I don't usually read or post in this subforum, but I had an idea for an alt-coin and I wanted to see what's the public reception for it. If it seems useful, I'll create it and release it. In fact, I already started working on it, but decided to make this post before continuing, to get some feedback.


Sheercoin, the minimalist cryptocurrency

The idea behind sheercoin is to create a cryptocurrency with as little overhead as possible. My plan is to start with bitcoin and remove everything that's not strictly necessary for a cryptocurrency to work. This means:

  • No coinbase messages
  • No multisig transactions
  • No P2SH
  • No OP_RETURN
  • No scripting at all, in fact
  • etc. Open to suggestions on what to "trim"


Double-signed transactions concept
I'd also want to throw an idea, which may or may not be suitable for sheercoin: what if the protocol required all transactions to be signed by both the sender and the receiver of coins?

For example, say Alice wants to send 1 coin to Bob. In bitcoin, Bob doesn't need to do anything for this to happen. Alice just needs to broadcast a signed transaction in which she proves she owns some unspent outputs, point them to Bob's address, and voilà: Bob now has the right to those bitcoins.

In sheercoin, we could make it so that both Alice AND Bob need to sign the transaction for it to be valid. This would require a little bit of extra effort for the users, as the transaction signed by Alice must be sent to Bob for signing before being broadcasted to the network. I think this would make it impossible to send sheercoins to non-existent private keys (like https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE or the addresses generated by http://www.proofofexistence.com/)

The goal is to create the most bare-bones cryptocurrency implementation possible, plus double-signing of transactions. This will hopefully be useful to many people that want to use a blockchain-based cryptocurrency which doesn't allow other uses like document time-stamping or data embedding. Is there any other known good practice we should follow for creating a new altcoin?

Timeline
Depending on feedback, the plan is to release sheercoin early next year.

Thoughts?
Happy 2014!
Manuel
1569082852
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569082852

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569082852
Reply with quote  #2

1569082852
Report to moderator
1569082852
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569082852

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569082852
Reply with quote  #2

1569082852
Report to moderator
1569082852
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569082852

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569082852
Reply with quote  #2

1569082852
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1569082852
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569082852

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569082852
Reply with quote  #2

1569082852
Report to moderator
maraoz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 07:43:31 AM
 #2

Reserved
Crackmacs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 07:46:34 AM
 #3

Forethought.

You're leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.
goostatic74829
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 07:47:34 AM
 #4

interesting

Drexme
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 07:49:30 AM
 #5

Reserved
following

maraoz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:02:07 PM
 #6

Thanks!
Any feedback on the Double-signed transactions concept?
flower1024
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:09:00 PM
 #7

Thanks!
Any feedback on the Double-signed transactions concept?

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)
endlessskill
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


AMD | Mining | NVIDIA


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:10:21 PM
 #8

Reserved
oncebitcoinedtwiceshy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:11:34 PM
 #9

Listening
BitzMD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 418
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:16:06 PM
 #10

lets see

atp1916
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:26:30 PM
 #11

Very interesting.

Let's see what you can do, OP.  Smiley
Nullu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:28:14 PM
 #12

Sounds interesting. Something new.

BTC - 14kYyhhWZwSJFHAjNTtyhRVSu157nE92gF
hmmmm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:31:48 PM
 #13

Wouldn't you be throwing out some necessary features?
chip99
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:32:42 PM
 #14

reserved

Bombtrack
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2014, 06:36:16 PM
 #15

I'm listening Smiley
nocoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:37:45 PM
 #16

In sheercoin, we could make it so that both Alice AND Bob need to sign the transaction for it to be valid. This would require a little bit of extra effort for the users, as the transaction signed by Alice must be sent to Bob for signing before being broadcasted to the network.
How do we send transactions in anonymous p2p-network if not by broadcasting to all nodes?

  • No coinbase messages
  • No scripting at all, in fact
Sounds like challenge, wishing luck!
Kheg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
 #17

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."
flower1024
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 06:59:02 PM
 #18

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?
blacklig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 251


View Profile
January 01, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
 #19

reserved
oroqen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 01, 2014, 08:33:47 PM
Last edit: January 01, 2014, 09:13:26 PM by oroqen
 #20

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?
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
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!