Joel Joonatan Kaartinen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-10-25 🗒️ Summary of this message: The author ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-10-25
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author proposes two options for implementing green transactions, with the first being a quick hack and the second being a more proper solution. There is controversy surrounding green transactions and a peer-sourced implementation is suggested.
📝 Original message:On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:45 +0200, Jan Vornberger wrote:
> 1) Get something working reasonable fast to detect current green address
> style transactions. It's fine if it is a little bit of a hack, as long as
> it's safe, since I don't expect it to be merged with mainline anyway at
> this point.
>
> 2) Rethink how green transactions are created and verified and try to put
> something 'proper' together which has a chance of being merged at some
> point.
>
> For the moment I was going more with 1) because I got the impression, that
> green transactions are too controversial at this point to get them
> included in mainline. Criticism ranging from 'unnecessary, as
> 0-confirmation transactions are fairly safe today' to 'encourages too much
> centralization and therefore evil'. So how to people on this list feel
> about green transactions? Would people be interested in helping me with
> 2)?
One possibility would be to create a peer sourced green address
implementation. That is, each user could, individually decide to trust
certain addresses as "green" and optionally, publish this trust. Basing
things on the published trust, you could dynamically, as opposed to
static hierarchies, evaluate the trustworthiness of each green address
you haven't personally decided to trust.
This would be somewhat involved implementation, though, as it would
require heavy statistical calculations.
- Joel
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author proposes two options for implementing green transactions, with the first being a quick hack and the second being a more proper solution. There is controversy surrounding green transactions and a peer-sourced implementation is suggested.
📝 Original message:On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:45 +0200, Jan Vornberger wrote:
> 1) Get something working reasonable fast to detect current green address
> style transactions. It's fine if it is a little bit of a hack, as long as
> it's safe, since I don't expect it to be merged with mainline anyway at
> this point.
>
> 2) Rethink how green transactions are created and verified and try to put
> something 'proper' together which has a chance of being merged at some
> point.
>
> For the moment I was going more with 1) because I got the impression, that
> green transactions are too controversial at this point to get them
> included in mainline. Criticism ranging from 'unnecessary, as
> 0-confirmation transactions are fairly safe today' to 'encourages too much
> centralization and therefore evil'. So how to people on this list feel
> about green transactions? Would people be interested in helping me with
> 2)?
One possibility would be to create a peer sourced green address
implementation. That is, each user could, individually decide to trust
certain addresses as "green" and optionally, publish this trust. Basing
things on the published trust, you could dynamically, as opposed to
static hierarchies, evaluate the trustworthiness of each green address
you haven't personally decided to trust.
This would be somewhat involved implementation, though, as it would
require heavy statistical calculations.
- Joel