> Trusted counterparties simply send you your coins back if justified, so you can already do that. It's just that you don't have a third party able to enforce such a return transaction for you.
Right, no any third party. But how we can talk about the trusted counterparties in a totally untrusted crypto network?
> Making transactions reversible by default without both parties consenting or involving a third party as arbiter makes a payment method useless.
I am sorry, but the meaning of "change-back transactions" was about one of different situations when, say, a recipient recieved some sum of money that is not consistent to contract's one.
> Any PoX process requires expenditure of resources in one way or another. Thus there will always be "inequality".
"Inequality" means if you, say, 5 years ago could do "proof-of-work" on your personal computer (when was one zero bit at the begining), so now, for an incoming network user would be implausibly hard to do the same work.
Don't we use blockchain technology for only a successively stored and approved transactions data?
> Unmanageable how?
By a "smart transactions"
Topic: Bitcoin based on other "not-Blockchain" technology (Read 140 times)
So far I'm not aware of any viable concepts for creating a blockchain-less cryptocurrency that doesn't rely on centralized entities for either token issuance, transaction security or even both. And I'm sure it's not for lack of trying.
Before the mempool was congested as it is now 0-conf transactions were viable for most use cases were fast transactions were of essence, allowing for basically instant transactions. With the development of Lightning Network we'll get instant transactions again by being able to use payment channels.
Trusted counterparties simply send you your coins back if justified, so you can already do that. It's just that you don't have a third party able to enforce such a return transaction for you.
Making transactions reversible by default without both parties consenting or involving a third party as arbiter makes a payment method useless.
Any PoX process requires expenditure of resources in one way or another. Thus there will always be "inequality".
If you are referring to ASIC vs GPU/CPU mining -- there are plenty of alternatives out there.
Unmanageable how?
- low speed of transaction approval
Before the mempool was congested as it is now 0-conf transactions were viable for most use cases were fast transactions were of essence, allowing for basically instant transactions. With the development of Lightning Network we'll get instant transactions again by being able to use payment channels.
- "change-back" transactions
Trusted counterparties simply send you your coins back if justified, so you can already do that. It's just that you don't have a third party able to enforce such a return transaction for you.
Making transactions reversible by default without both parties consenting or involving a third party as arbiter makes a payment method useless.
- inequality in "proof-of-work" process
Any PoX process requires expenditure of resources in one way or another. Thus there will always be "inequality".
If you are referring to ASIC vs GPU/CPU mining -- there are plenty of alternatives out there.
- unmanageable "input-output" transaction process
Unmanageable how?
Yes, got it. But what about launching of a new "not-Blockchain" technology that will solve many blockchain-based problems? Anybody starts doing this?
If bitcoin moves to any new chain, this means that you created a new harkfork unless it is compatible with old bitcoin source code. For example, the lightning network moves currencies to a second layer away from the blockchain, but that layer is still subject to bitcoin blockchain rules.
You can create whatever layers you want, but at the end of the day, the signature and confidence will be at the level of addresses, not currencies.
If you change the rules, you create a new currency.
You can create whatever layers you want, but at the end of the day, the signature and confidence will be at the level of addresses, not currencies.
If you change the rules, you create a new currency.
- low speed of transaction approval
- "change-back" transactions
- inequality in "proof-of-work" process
- unmanageable "input-output" transaction process
Is'n it enough for starting to think about "What we can change?"?
- "change-back" transactions
- inequality in "proof-of-work" process
- unmanageable "input-output" transaction process
Is'n it enough for starting to think about "What we can change?"?
Jump to: