one thing in particular I see where using the second method would seem to be better is in mixing. If we use:
---alices signature---
coin abc
---bobs public key---
---alices signature---
it is technically possible for this to happen
---mixes signature---
coin abc
---Alices public key---
---alices signature---
coin abc
---mixes public key---
---alices signature---
---mixes signature---
sorry probably fucked that diagram up but my point is Alice can get the same coin she put into the mix out of the mix. If numbers are used like the other option:
---alices signature---
alice: 0 mix: 1
timestamp (to prevent replay attacks)
---alices signature---
---mixes signature---
mix: 0 alice: 1
timestamp (to prevent replay attacks)
---mixes signature---
Now even though alice put in one coin and got one coin out, it doesn't matter because a coin is a coin.
Hope I explain myself well. Thanks!
Topic: why is it (Read 966 times)
That bitcoin is done like this:
---alices signature---
coin abc
---bobs public key---
---alices signature---
instead of like this
---alices signature---
alice: 0 bob: 1
timestamp (to prevent replay attacks)
---alices signature---
where bob and alice are replaced with keys, and the network just keeps a running track of who has how many points (and if alice says to give bob more coins that she has it is rejected by the network, and if alice and bob do not equal out to a possible difference it is rejects (for example alice has 2 coins and bob has 1 coin prior to a transaction, so alice: 0 bob:4 will be rejected but alice:1 bob:2 and alice:0 bob:3 will not be). Wouldn't that make the network more anonymous, as 1 coin of Alices would be equal to one coin of Bobs rather than there being a difference between coin abc and coin def?
Is there something I am missing?
---alices signature---
coin abc
---bobs public key---
---alices signature---
instead of like this
---alices signature---
alice: 0 bob: 1
timestamp (to prevent replay attacks)
---alices signature---
where bob and alice are replaced with keys, and the network just keeps a running track of who has how many points (and if alice says to give bob more coins that she has it is rejected by the network, and if alice and bob do not equal out to a possible difference it is rejects (for example alice has 2 coins and bob has 1 coin prior to a transaction, so alice: 0 bob:4 will be rejected but alice:1 bob:2 and alice:0 bob:3 will not be). Wouldn't that make the network more anonymous, as 1 coin of Alices would be equal to one coin of Bobs rather than there being a difference between coin abc and coin def?
Is there something I am missing?
Jump to: