The following won't be directly applicable to your question without some
kind of tremendous hacking on your part: but in cryptography there is
actually a way to sign a message using only hash functions.
If you're interested look up the definition for "Lamport Signatures." It's
an algorithm for
Really nice idea. So its like a smart contract that incentivizes
publication that a server has been hacked? I also really like how the
funding has been handled -- with all the coins stored in the same address
and then each server associated with a unique signature. That way, you
don't have to
rders matched to users
> directly, and channel-trades executed instantly. And "market makers"
> running nodes to facilitate routing, etc.
>
> No center... nothing to shut down or sue... and no one holds your funds.
> That's a real Bitcoin exchange.
>
>
>
>
I'm wondering if we're fully on the same page here. What I was thinking was
that this protection mechanism would be applied to the coins in the hot
wallet (I wasn't talking about moving coins from the cold wallet to the hot
wallet -- though such a mechanism is also needed.)
With the hot wallet
And the
> refund TXN would need to be able to go to a new address entirely.
>
> On Aug 3, 2016 11:28 PM, "Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 6:16:20 PM Matthew Roberts via bitco
ion system for an
exchange perfectly while requiring minimal changes to the software.
Very, very smart idea. A++, would read again.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Matthew Roberts via bitcoin-
In light of the recent hack: what does everyone think of the idea of
creating a new address type that has a reversal key and settlement layer
that can be used to revoke transactions?
You could specify so that transactions "sent" from these addresses must
receive N confirmations before they can't
Good point, to be honest. Maybe there's a better way to combine the block
hashes like taking the first N bits from each block hash to produce a
single number but the direction that this is going in doesn't seem ideal.
I just asked a friend about this problem and he mentioned using the hash of
the
== Background
OP_PRANDOM is a new op code for Bitcoin that pushes a pseudo-random number
to the top of the stack based on the next N block hashes. The source of the
pseudo-random number is defined as the XOR of the next N block hashes after
confirmation of a transaction containing the OP_PRANDOM
