- New key-pair can be written to the coin only if you have current private key.
- Whenever you need to make a transaction, you collect private keys from enough amount of coins and transfer it to the buyer. He then uses those keys to rewrite coins and generate new keys for himself. You don't have access to the coins anymore
- No need to wait for confirmations, as nobody knows that you exchanged keys with someone. Everyone just know that this coin is legal, and will accept it as payment as soon as receive private keys from whoever claims to be an owner of that coin
Topic: Is there totally different model possible for distributed cryptocurrency? (Read 939 times)
October 09, 2013, 12:35:21 PM
October 09, 2013, 11:33:07 AM
You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of bitcoin... Without the huge transaction history, there is no way to verify that a coin is "legal", as you put it.
The closest thing you're referring to is transaction headers; a wallet can work with just the headers. These are just a record of all the coins, but no transactions. But the full transactions list must still be on the network.
I believe I do understand everything, but you're quite right. After more thinking about this - I figured out what's wrong with my idea. It's not different at all. If I rename couple of variables I'll get the exact same model, just instead of sending bitcoin as a transaction you leave required amount on one of your addresses and basically give access to that address to another person. Same kind of off-chain transaction.The closest thing you're referring to is transaction headers; a wallet can work with just the headers. These are just a record of all the coins, but no transactions. But the full transactions list must still be on the network.
Quote
Whenever you need to make a transaction, you collect private keys from enough amount of coins and transfer it to the buyer. He then uses those keys to rewrite coins and generate new keys for himself. You don't have access to the coins anymore
And this is exactly how bitcoin already works. Thank you for helping me to figure it out.
Regarding second comment. I think the idea of limited supply worth nothing, main reason is to get printing it out off government hands. Actually it is not important. Either you increase amount of money or do not increase amount, but value of money rises - exactly the same thing.
Examples:
I took 100 USD from you. I'll give back 110 USD in a year.
I took 100 BTC from you. I'll give back 100 BTC in a year, but it will be more valuable at that time.
October 09, 2013, 09:38:21 AM
the idea of a limited supply of coins is one of the great features of crypto currencies, having the limited supply means that no one is able to devalue your coins simply by printing more.
the fact that as the coin gets more valuable, people will hold on to it is a great thing in my opinion, Im looking forward to being able to use Bitcoin to buy a house in 5-10 years time, and when people ask how much it cost me ill be able to say, hmmm about £300 all in.
you've probably heard it before but the comparison of bitcoin to gold is very good, As people start to horde Bitcoin you will see others starting to fill the gaps for the "Lesser" currencies so we are currently waiting to see who will be the next silver/bronze etc etc
If you are simply wanting to be more anonymous online check out ANC (Anon Coin) that is one of the main features they promote with their currency {there were rumours that it would become the new currency of SilkRoad before it got nailed by the man!)
October 09, 2013, 09:02:43 AM
You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of bitcoin... Without the huge transaction history, there is no way to verify that a coin is "legal", as you put it.
The closest thing you're referring to is transaction headers; a wallet can work with just the headers. These are just a record of all the coins, but no transactions. But the full transactions list must still be on the network.
The closest thing you're referring to is transaction headers; a wallet can work with just the headers. These are just a record of all the coins, but no transactions. But the full transactions list must still be on the network.
Quote
Whenever you need to make a transaction, you collect private keys from enough amount of coins and transfer it to the buyer. He then uses those keys to rewrite coins and generate new keys for himself. You don't have access to the coins anymore
And this is exactly how bitcoin already works. October 09, 2013, 07:29:00 AM
Bitcoins are great, first time I discovered it couple years ago I was really amazed.
However now I understand that it's distributed, secure, but not really anonymous. It's easy to recover half of all bitcoin owners doing some social analysis and I'm pretty sure if anyone really wants to, it's possible to find out owner of any address, which is participating in economy.
Yes, maybe if you don't use your coins you'll never be discovered, but what's the point to have them in a first place?
A lot of alternative coins exist, but they all share the same model, just playing with some parameters.
Having eternal transaction history log is quite a dangerous idea, more transactions it involves - more data can be observed about each user, like if you buy something in neighborhood grocery for bitcoins or coffee at your office coffeeshop - you can be easily traced.
I was thinking if it's possible to create totally different model.
Something more similar to cash.
Here's my idea:
But I'd like to know what you think about it?
If someone knows the reason why it's bad idea, or cannot be done, please share with me.
However now I understand that it's distributed, secure, but not really anonymous. It's easy to recover half of all bitcoin owners doing some social analysis and I'm pretty sure if anyone really wants to, it's possible to find out owner of any address, which is participating in economy.
Yes, maybe if you don't use your coins you'll never be discovered, but what's the point to have them in a first place?
A lot of alternative coins exist, but they all share the same model, just playing with some parameters.
Having eternal transaction history log is quite a dangerous idea, more transactions it involves - more data can be observed about each user, like if you buy something in neighborhood grocery for bitcoins or coffee at your office coffeeshop - you can be easily traced.
I was thinking if it's possible to create totally different model.
Something more similar to cash.
Here's my idea:
- Each coin will be represented by some UUID, which is impossible to guess in short period of time.
- Instead of transaction history there is a log of all known coins and mining can confirm existing coins and create new using some proof of work mechanism similar to bitcoins
- Each coin has a public key and a private key. Owning a coin means having a private key. Nobody knows who has a private key from each particular coin
- New key-pair can be written to the coin only if you have current private key.
- Whenever you need to make a transaction, you collect private keys from enough amount of coins and transfer it to the buyer. He then uses those keys to rewrite coins and generate new keys for himself. You don't have access to the coins anymore
- No need to wait for confirmations, as nobody knows that you exchanged keys with someone. Everyone just know that this coin is legal, and will accept it as payment as soon as receive private keys from whoever claims to be an owner of that coin
- There is still need for confirmations, but only for new coins. After miner discovered it he can't use it right away, as nobody has this coin in logs yet. He should wait for network to confirm it
- We can set any reasonable generation rate by manipulating complexity of task miner needs to solve
- And one more thing, which is not actually related to model itself. I think coins generation should continue indefinitely, like 10% new coins per year. It's natural, because life is short and money should have more value for you today, than tomorrow. It allows reasonable loan activity.
The problem with bitcoins - there is limited amount. Longer you don't spend it, more it costs, which actually prevents people from participating in economy.
But I'd like to know what you think about it?
If someone knows the reason why it's bad idea, or cannot be done, please share with me.
Jump to: