[ANN][SHC]Pre-Launch - Sheercoin, the minimalist cryptocurrency

[maraoz]

deleted

[1713963821]

1713963821

[Crackmacs]

Forethought.

You're leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

[goostatic74829]

interesting

[Drexme]

Reserved
following

[flower1024]

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]

Reserved

[oncebitcoinedtwiceshy]

Listening

[BitzMD]

lets see

[atp1916]

Very interesting.

Let's see what you can do, OP. 

[Nullu]

Sounds interesting. Something new.

[hmmmm]

Wouldn't you be throwing out some necessary features?

[chip99]

reserved

[Bombtrack]

I'm listening

[nocoin]

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]

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]

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]

reserved

[oroqen]

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

[Evilish]

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

[badbonez]

Reserved