Topic: what about allowing an owner to lock BTC to an address -- Part II, Bitcoin bonds (Read 1238 times)
September 08, 2012, 03:06:14 AM
This has nothing to do with thieves or with losing wallets, which is the reason it is in a separate thread.
September 08, 2012, 03:03:46 AM
If I tell the blockchain that my addresses are not spendable for the next year, then what? A hacker steals my wallet and signs with its keys a transaction to spend all coins to his address. Great to know my coins will remain in my address for another year with me being unable to spend them and with them moving to a new known address the secondblock after.
If I can change the rules of the game in what is this different from having my wallet encrypted? Aka if the thief of my wallet can not act on behalf of all the bitcoins sent to keys within my wallet, how should this protection look like?
If I can change the rules of the game in what is this different from having my wallet encrypted? Aka if the thief of my wallet can not act on behalf of all the bitcoins sent to keys within my wallet, how should this protection look like?
September 08, 2012, 02:18:21 AM
to lock their Bitcoins
Based on the time-locking idea here.
Are you talking about locking bitcoins in the blockchain (BIP) aka making them unspendable before block XY or not?
Yes?
for those who think that Bitcoin must either take over the world, or die.
create a market for price stability
Quote from: giszmo
Bonds are securities and I see no locking here.
You see no locking where?
September 08, 2012, 01:36:13 AM
Are you talking about locking bitcoins in the blockchain (BIP) aka making them unspendable before block XY or not? Why would anybody lock bitcoins or pay interest for freezing assets?
Bonds are securities and I see no locking here.
Bonds are securities and I see no locking here.
September 06, 2012, 09:32:02 PM
Based on the time-locking idea here. Similar idea here.
These would be voluntary "bonds" for all parties. The Bitcoins would never actually be held by a third party. They just would not be spendable for a period of time. The contract would be enforced by the Bitcoin network. Negotiating the contract in a decentralized way should be possible. This would create a market for price stability, at a market rate, for those who are interested.
These would be voluntary "bonds" for all parties. The Bitcoins would never actually be held by a third party. They just would not be spendable for a period of time. The contract would be enforced by the Bitcoin network. Negotiating the contract in a decentralized way should be possible. This would create a market for price stability, at a market rate, for those who are interested.
September 06, 2012, 09:29:20 PM
what if we could flag certain btc with something like "this cannot be transferred from this address within X period" (able to be changed by the owner)? for example, in a long-term savings situation, this would allow even an unprotected walled, assuming all coins were marked, to be safe for a period of time.
This is an idea for those who think that Bitcoin must either take over the world, or die.
It would create the concept of Bitcoin "bonds". You could create a mechanism for individuals who are interested in seeing the exchange value of Bitcoins rise, to pay interest on the bonds. Perhaps, with a sophisticated multisig contract, it could be done in a de-centralized way. It almost doesn't even matter what the interest rate is, since there will be plenty of people who are holding Bitcoins for the long term anyways, and would be happy to lock their Bitcoins in exchange for more in the future.
The concept is that Bob pays 1 BTC, and in exchange receives a transaction that time-locks 10000 of Alice's Bitcoins, for a year. At the end of the year, Alice gets 10001 BTC back. I have no doubt there are people who would do this.
I wonder whether this is Gavin's "secret idea". It would add stability. It's sophisticated enough to be on his level. And it's fairly obvious based on recent events.
Jump to: