On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 01:40:53PM +0200, Nathan Cook wrote:
Would you mind doing up some actual scriptPubKeys/transactions using
this idea as an example? I think it'd make the review process a lot
easier for everyone if there was something more concrete. (equally,
sorry I haven't had a chance to
Firstly, apologies to Nathan for not actually providing feedback on his
protocol. I've put pondering it onto my mental todo list. The notion of a
payment tree is interesting but complicated - I would need to think about
it and maybe draw myself some diagrams before having useful feedback here.
If y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Please comment if possible on some of the techno-cultural implications
of ongoing development of bi-directional micropayment channels?
For example, consider zakat example(s):
www[dot]hidaya[dot]org/publications/zakat-information/10-what-is-zakat-obl
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Additionally, there is a school of thought that says Bitcoin must work even
> if lots of miners are malicious and willing to break arbitrary things in
> order to try and get more money. I don't think Bitcoin can really be a
This being unsafe doe
The original design is documented at the bottom of here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_7:_Rapidly-adjusted_.28micro.29payments_to_a_pre-determined_party
In this design, time locked transactions can be broadcast across the
network and replaced by broadcasting a new transaction that
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> A limitation on most existing micropayment channel ideas is that payments
>> can only flow in one direction.
> It's worth noting that the original protocol as designed by Satoshi did not
> have this limitation. It has evolved this way because of
Mike, Can you be more specific? You reference "original design" without
saying how it was different/better.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> A limitation on most existing micropayment channel ideas is that payments
>> can only flow in one direction.
>>
>
> It's worth noting
>
> A limitation on most existing micropayment channel ideas is that payments
> can only flow in one direction.
>
It's worth noting that the original protocol as designed by Satoshi did not
have this limitation. It has evolved this way because of ad-hoc DoS fixes
over time (btw I'm not saying they
A limitation on most existing micropayment channel ideas is that payments
can only flow in one direction. This is because the payment receiver can
sign -any- transaction you send them, not just the most recent one, and so
it's possible to just sign the transaction transferring the largest amount
in
9 matches
Mail list logo
