New feature request: Locking sending the bitcoin address, bitcoin banking

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: tonychow on April 24, 2014, 12:27:46 PM

bitcoin owner can state somewhere in the block chain that bitcoins in that address cannot be sent, which can add one more level of security. Also, the owner can voluntarily reveal his identity in public, or to a trusted third party.

This is already how bitcoin works. There is no feature request necessary.

dewdeded

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1011

Monero Evangelist

Feature exists.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/NLockTime

Maybe for your use-case you have to do Multi-Signature-TX with NLockTime.
(Could be that what you want cant be done with one TX, so -> Multi-Sig-TX.)

TierNolan

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1094

You could implement a "fake" version of this.

Create a private/public key-pair.

Create a transaction which sends money to the corresponding address

Submit to the network

Create a new transaction that sends that money onwards to one of your other address. This transaction should be locked for 3 months in the future.

Wait a while for the transaction to be buried in the chain. There is a risk due to malleability. Once the transaction is buried 10-20 blocks deep, it should be very safe (unless it is a very large transaction).

The wait isn't needed if malleability is fixed.

Once you are confident that no reversal will happen, store the redeem transaction and delete the private key.

This means that the only way to spend your coin is with the transaction that you just created.

Since it is a locked transaction, you can't spend it for 3 months.

A hacker would need to steal the redeem transaction and also the key for the address that you sent it to.

softron

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

If u do this how do u unlock the wallet when u need it. U might look at using multi-sig addresses, they work well for securing coins.

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 1313

Quote from: tonychow on April 24, 2014, 12:27:46 PM

I think technically, it is implementable. That is, bitcoin owner can state somewhere in the block chain that bitcoins in that address cannot be sent, which can add one more level of security. Also, the owner can voluntarily reveal his identity in public, or to a trusted third party.

Anonymity should be an added feature, not a mandatory feature, and that will improve the overall security.

1. Anyone can state "this public address is me" right now. You can be non-anonymous without any feature changes.

2. A private key states that coins cannot be sent. That is its function. No additional feature is required there either. If you require a second or third signature for more security, then use multi-sig for the trusted third party.

BitCoinDream

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 1216

The revolution will be digital

Quote from: tonychow on April 24, 2014, 12:27:46 PM

I think technically, it is implementable. That is, bitcoin owner can state somewhere in the block chain that bitcoins in that address cannot be sent, which can add one more level of security. Also, the owner can voluntarily reveal his identity in public, or to a trusted third party.

Anonymity should be an added feature, not a mandatory feature, and that will improve the overall security.

+1

Its a required feature indeed. But I doubt if the current protocol can support it w/o relying on a third party.

tonychow

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

I think technically, it is implementable. That is, bitcoin owner can state somewhere in the block chain that bitcoins in that address cannot be sent, which can add one more level of security. Also, the owner can voluntarily reveal his identity in public, or to a trusted third party.

Anonymity should be an added feature, not a mandatory feature, and that will improve the overall security.

Topic: New feature request: Locking sending the bitcoin address, bitcoin banking (Read 564 times)