[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       hyperledger-technical-discuss
Subject:    [technical-discuss] Technical roadblock might shatter Bitcoin dreams
From:       shidan () gmail ! com (Shidan)
Date:       2016-02-16 18:50:36
Message-ID: CANi8SaYDvs8pqyNeittgWRgFeQhTWiXCjGuthatNVWycoJYntQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Good ideas to explore at a certain point, for example certainly agree
about accounts, I think both ripple and ethereum have shown the
benefits in practise .. but right now these issues seems like
premature over-optimization. Even the old elixir prototype was pretty
scalable from the little experimenting that I did for many use cases.
I think it would be better to figure out what minimum consensus
architectures would be needed for what use cases and explore
scalability from there.  Off ledger transactions shouldn't be ruled
out as an integrated solution.

 Are there any whitepapers on what the vision and goal for the new
hyperledger is? I can't access the papers that were linked a few days
ago in one of the other threads.

--Shidan Gouran

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Allen via
hyperledger-technical-discuss
<hyperledger-technical-discuss at lists.hyperledger.org> wrote:
>> you should be required to run cryptographic algorithms in your actual
>> transcation (don't send tokens to a HASH(pubkey) but to an id, or name)
>
> I read your docs so I have a little better idea of what you're talking
> about.  My understanding is that you're proposing payments should made made
> to/from 48-64 bit account numbers rather than 160-256 bit pseudo-anonymous
> addresses.  Each account would have a transaction authorization method
> associated with it (public key or keys and multisig signing requirements).
> Each network participant would have a relatively small number of accounts
> (say 1 to 10), and the network nodes could maintain all of the active data
> (account numbers, account balances, tx auth requirements) in RAM rather than
> having to do disk to lookups from a large pool of UTXO's.  A user could
> achieve some level of privacy by setting up more more than one account, but
> in general, privacy is not a goal of the system.  Is that an accurate
> summary?  I'm still not sure though what "you should be required to run
> cryptographic algorithms in your actual transaction" means.
>
> _______________________________________________
> hyperledger-technical-discuss mailing list
> hyperledger-technical-discuss at lists.hyperledger.org
> https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-technical-discuss
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]