11–20 of 44 posts
Given that this seems very similar to el33th4xor's Virtual Notary, how would one distinguish between the strengths or use cases of the two?
http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/06/20/virtual-notary-intr...
"This is why the bitcoins sent in this special transaction are unspendable, as the addresses are being generated from the document's hash fragments instead of from a private ECDSA key." I hadn't realised before that this means that you can provably "destroy" bitcoins. That is, you can "prove" that a certain bitcoin amount will never be spent again by anyone including yourself...
"This is why the bitcoins sent in this special transaction are unspendable, as the addresses are being generated from the document's hash fragments instead of from a private ECDSA key." I hadn't realised before that this means that you can provably "destroy" bitcoins. That is, you can "prove" that a certain bitcoin amount will never be spent again by anyone including yourself...
Yeah, the fact that bitcoins can be permanently destroyed is a little bit worrying, one of BTC's benefits is it's cap. What's the economical consequences of these coins being destroyed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transaction prioritization[1] and transaction fees already rate limit stuff like that, and patches to the clients used by major mining pools may be able to fix it permanently. 1. priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
What determines the size_in_bytes value? In general, let's say a govt agency get assigned an $18.5m budget to break the Bitcoin currency as much possible, what could their plan of attack be, i.e. spend that money in the most efficient way possible? Create a large ring of wallets and send tiny payment around the ring? Create less wallets but send large payments between them?
"This is why the bitcoins sent in this special transaction are unspendable, as the addresses are being generated from the document's hash fragments instead of from a private ECDSA key." I hadn't realised before that this means that you can provably "destroy" bitcoins. That is, you can "prove" that a certain bitcoin amount will never be spent again by anyone including yourself...
Yeah, the fact that bitcoins can be permanently destroyed is a little bit worrying, one of BTC's benefits is it's cap. What's the economical consequences of these coins being destroyed?
"This is why the bitcoins sent in this special transaction are unspendable, as the addresses are being generated from the document's hash fragments instead of from a private ECDSA key." I hadn't realised before that this means that you can provably "destroy" bitcoins. That is, you can "prove" that a certain bitcoin amount will never be spent again by anyone including yourself...
Yeah, the fact that bitcoins can be permanently destroyed is a little bit worrying, one of BTC's benefits is it's cap. What's the economical consequences of these coins being destroyed?
"This is why the bitcoins sent in this special transaction are unspendable, as the addresses are being generated from the document's hash fragments instead of from a private ECDSA key." I hadn't realised before that this means that you can provably "destroy" bitcoins. That is, you can "prove" that a certain bitcoin amount will never be spent again by anyone including yourself...
Could you please elaborate on this? I understand neither your comment, nor the part that you quoted from the site.
Thus no one can ever spend those BTC ever again, they exist in BTC limbo, attached to a notional wallet that (probably) exists but can never be found.
Can a coin survive without a ledger? I rather see a coin with proof-of-exchange without a ton-of-gigs blockchain at all.