Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-04-03 📝 Original message:Hi ZmnSCPxj, Thought ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-04-03
📝 Original message:Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Thought provoking, thank you!
Something I dislike in the scheme, that one could not tell which party colluded with the escrow agent.
Tamas Blummer
> On Apr 4, 2019, at 03:55, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html
>
> Smart contracts have traditionally been implemented as part of the consensus rules of some blokchain. Often this means creating a new blockchain, or at least a sidechain to an existing blockchain. This writeup proposes an alternative method without launching a separate blockchain or sidechain, while achieving security similar to federated sidechains and additional benefits to privacy and smart-contract-patching.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
📝 Original message:Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Thought provoking, thank you!
Something I dislike in the scheme, that one could not tell which party colluded with the escrow agent.
Tamas Blummer
> On Apr 4, 2019, at 03:55, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html
>
> Smart contracts have traditionally been implemented as part of the consensus rules of some blokchain. Often this means creating a new blockchain, or at least a sidechain to an existing blockchain. This writeup proposes an alternative method without launching a separate blockchain or sidechain, while achieving security similar to federated sidechains and additional benefits to privacy and smart-contract-patching.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev