A more advanced system would always have initial Hedge owners code from their UNO address (any in their wallet) to the Hedge writer's official designated UNO address, along with the full UNO payment for the hedge. Then, all subsequent owners code payments to the proximate previous owner's officially-used address. (Wallets /or at least private keys MUST be maintained through the duration of Hedge ownership!)
Line 1: Hedge payment
Lines 2-4: Hedge Name (i.e. "Hedge 003")
Lines 5-8: New Owner's Handle
Errors would require a re-submission of the last 7 lines, which is fine, since it would be from the new owner's same UNO address.*
Also, at least a simple program can be written to tell each new owner what to key-in, quite simply~!
Not a bad system, really, and it gets everything on the blockchain. Someone has to pay in full, or everyone can see that they didn't by just looking at the blockchain, and the evident chain of owners. I.e. No imposter claims can fly, although any fool is welcome to send the previous owner extra, inadequate, funds! (
) Plus, the transaction amount is clearly posted in the BCT thread action.
-
I'm not 100% on wallet/crypto algorithms, so correct me, if there are glaring oversights in this whole process, but I think this would actually work!...
...*For example, if the sender's wallet address is almost out of UNO, I understand it will draw funds from a different address in their wallet, but in almost all cases, the blockchain should show a connection between the two sender's addresses, thus keeping it obvious it's still from the new owner, and it wouldn't matter which of the two addresses a proximate owner sends their Recorder Transactions to. This should be rare concern, anyway.