Topic: On reversible transactions - page 3. (Read 594 times)

How come really?

We should just increase a version number (or how it is called correctly), so that you don't really need to update existing addresses at all. In this way, only newer addresses will be able to use this feature. In other words, legacy addresses should just ignore it. Basically, this is how scalable and compatible systems are built where you can add new features without affecting the existing feature set in a negative or dangerous way (like you mean it)

Hacks and thefts follow every financial technology or system, as far as there is a prospect of acquiring the funds and assets of others.


Most hacks happen over the secondary market mostly centralized exchanges, the chances of a wallet address getting hacked is very low, you can secure it further by using a hardware wallet.

You're first thing is already in place through locking, and multi signature methods. Though I am sure there are ways around this.

Your second idea would need quite the change and all the wallets to update with it as soon as it goes live or tons of theft would happen, help a ton would happen due to unknowing users. This doesn't seem like an easy thing to implement without theifs going wild.

We all know that hacks and thefts are following Bitcoin (as well as other cryptocurrencies, for that matter) and its users like a plague, so I was thinking about solving this issue once and for all. Long story short, we need to implement two things described in detail below

First, we should create "frozen" or lockable addresses, i.e. addresses which will be locked for a specified amount of time on the protocol level by setting a special variable that will be our countdown timer. After it runs out the address gets unlocked and you can move your coins freely. That would essentially mean that no one including the owner of the keys will be able to move these coins anywhere until the specified amount of time runs out, thereby efficiently and effectively preventing hacks and thefts during that time. As an extension to this basic feature, it could be beneficial to create a white list of addresses where the coins can be sent to during this lock time

Second, we should make some transactions reversible, but please don't attack me before you actually listen me out. It is most certainly not what you think it is. This feature should allow a transaction to expire (i.e. be reversed) unless the payee (i.e. the person you pay to and who is to receive the money) confirms it from their side. This is how many online payment systems work (e.g. Yandex.Money). Basically, you send money to someone but they won't be able to receive it without a protection code which you send them separately (or tell in person). Thus, if no code is provided on time, the transaction gets canceled. Essentially the same thing can and should be implemented in Bitcoin

So if you find these proposals interesting or even if you find them disgusting, feel free to comment below