Topic: Instawallet introduces new approach to instant payment: Green address technique (Read 30227 times)
August 22, 2012, 10:21:24 AM
Quick update: I summarized the ideas discussed here in a paper and also did some more implementation work. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/paper-on-marker-addresses-aka-green-addresses-102517
June 10, 2012, 01:14:50 PM
This is a brilliant idea and I hope it's implemented in the code. 
March 13, 2012, 02:21:16 AM
The key problem with "green addresses" is that it encourages service providers to spam the blockchain with moves of funds to a single address. Since these same services cannot have users send directly to the "green address", the need for an extra transaction/input to move funds to one is almost always needed.
Thanks for explaining this. I was just about to ask what bloat there was.
February 05, 2012, 01:37:53 PM
And why is the system built so miners can change things like signatures? Couldn't that be bad?
Miners can change signatures, but obviously if they break the rules, their block will still be invalid. An extra signature that isn't needed to verify the transaction can therefore safely be stripped. 
February 05, 2012, 12:31:33 PM
Luke-Jr, thank you for your answer.
I'm very interested in this subject (instant transfer and zero-confirmation transactions).
Could you explain in simple words your technique, in a similar way to this one, please?
Thanks!
I'm very interested in this subject (instant transfer and zero-confirmation transactions).
Could you explain in simple words your technique, in a similar way to this one, please?
Thanks!
February 05, 2012, 11:47:10 AM
The key problem with "green addresses" is that it encourages service providers to spam the blockchain with moves of funds to a single address. Since these same services cannot have users send directly to the "green address", the need for an extra transaction/input to move funds to one is almost always needed.
Thanks for explaining this. I was just about to ask what bloat there was.Quote
On the other hand, it's possible to simply add an extra signature to transactions, signed by the "green address", which gets relayed with it. Service providers can check for this signature. Miners can (but don't currently) omit this signature from blocks, so it doesn't cause permanent bloat.
How simple is simple?And why is the system built so miners can change things like signatures? Couldn't that be bad?
February 05, 2012, 08:09:54 AM
The key problem with "green addresses" is that it encourages service providers to spam the blockchain with moves of funds to a single address. Since these same services cannot have users send directly to the "green address", the need for an extra transaction/input to move funds to one is almost always needed.
On the other hand, it's possible to simply add an extra signature to transactions, signed by the "green address", which gets relayed with it. Service providers can check for this signature. Miners can (but don't currently) omit this signature from blocks, so it doesn't cause permanent bloat.
On the other hand, it's possible to simply add an extra signature to transactions, signed by the "green address", which gets relayed with it. Service providers can check for this signature. Miners can (but don't currently) omit this signature from blocks, so it doesn't cause permanent bloat.
February 05, 2012, 05:59:57 AM
That's why I looked at solutions that would work with the current code base. Maybe some would consider this as "broken by design", I like to think of it as "pragmatic".
I've already told you about the potential of this combined with ripple-like bitcoin transactions or just combined with Ripple.
But I currently don't have the time anyway to continue working on this, as some "RL stuff" has gotten in the way. So sure, if some superior solution makes it into the code base then I'm all for it.
What a pity. I think green addresses is a great idea.
February 05, 2012, 05:48:40 AM
Seems like a good suggestion.
I'm sure there are better/more efficient ways to achieve the green address goals if you manage to get some required changes into the Satoshi client. I didn't really look at this option too much, because my impression is that the whole green address thing is somewhat controversial and a number of people are not convinced that it is even needed, so it seemed to me that it would probably not be accepted by the dev team.
That's why I looked at solutions that would work with the current code base. Maybe some would consider this as "broken by design", I like to think of it as "pragmatic".
But I currently don't have the time anyway to continue working on this, as some "RL stuff" has gotten in the way. So sure, if some superior solution makes it into the code base then I'm all for it.
February 05, 2012, 05:14:14 AM
Good question.
In the bitcoin development mail list, in the aliases thread, there was a considerable criticism against firstbits. I claimed that firstbits was still valuable for systems such as green addresses where the length of the url is a constraint because of QR codes and luke claimed that "green addresses are also broken by design".
I would like to see, Jav, discussion about this between you and luke-jr. Because I strongly disagree with him on this point.
February 04, 2012, 08:18:19 PM
January 03, 2012, 12:17:11 PM
He might be wondering the same thing that I was: whether NOT using the green address could possibly reveal the original sending Instawallet address.
When sending between Instawallets? No, it does not reveal the address in any way. It doesn't hit the blockchain at all, so it isn't visible from the outside. It's just changing the balance in the database for the affected Instawallets.
I sometimes see people doing stuff like this: "Outside -> Instawallet A -> Instawallet B -> Instawallet C -> Outside". I guess they want to launder these coins, or something. There is really not much point in moving funds around inside Instawallet like that. The coins that are finally send out from Instawallet C aren't more mixed or something than what you would have gotten from Instawallet A.
January 03, 2012, 11:59:37 AM
Is there a reason instawallet doesn't accept its own green address? It'd be mice if I didn't have to wait 6 confirms if the coins were sent with the green address.
The reason is that receiving from green addresses in general is not implemented yet, so it's also not available for this specific address. I want to do this properly, be able to manage the risk and limit the damage if a green address that I accept is compromised for some reason. Unfortunately I currently don't have time to work on it much, as other obligations keep me busy.
What are you trying to do though? If you send to another Instawallet without forcing it through the green address the system will be able to do an internal transfer and it will clear instantly.
He might be wondering the same thing that I was: whether NOT using the green address could possibly reveal the original sending Instawallet address.
January 03, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Is there a reason instawallet doesn't accept its own green address? It'd be mice if I didn't have to wait 6 confirms if the coins were sent with the green address.
The reason is that receiving from green addresses in general is not implemented yet, so it's also not available for this specific address. I want to do this properly, be able to manage the risk and limit the damage if a green address that I accept is compromised for some reason. Unfortunately I currently don't have time to work on it much, as other obligations keep me busy.
What are you trying to do though? If you send to another Instawallet without forcing it through the green address the system will be able to do an internal transfer and it will clear instantly.
January 03, 2012, 01:24:36 AM
Is there a reason instawallet doesn't accept its own green address? It'd be mice if I didn't have to wait 6 confirms if the coins were sent with the green address.
That is a good question. January 03, 2012, 12:13:56 AM
Is there a reason instawallet doesn't accept its own green address? It'd be mice if I didn't have to wait 6 confirms if the coins were sent with the green address.
November 27, 2011, 04:37:37 PM
jav, is your PM not working ? :)
I think it is (?). The last PM I received from you is from November 26 and I thought I had replied to it. Although I can't find it in my outbox right now - I'll send it again.Hope you will support my proposal.
November 27, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
jav, is your PM not working ? 
I think it is (?). The last PM I received from you is from November 26 and I thought I had replied to it. Although I can't find it in my outbox right now - I'll send it again.
November 27, 2011, 04:05:00 PM
jav, is your PM not working ? :)
November 19, 2011, 01:40:49 PM
How will this list of green addresses be populated?
For now I will just decide on a case by case basis. I think the Bitcoin community is still small enough that there aren't that many players and those that are interested to get on the list should just get in touch with me.
Jump to: