4 ms·

Couldn't we save a lot of energy and have a distributed stores of identities (public keys) with ledgers, something like a git repo per identity? Whenever I wan

Couldn't we save a lot of energy and have a distributed stores of identities (public keys) with ledgers, something like a git repo per identity? Whenever I want to spend money, I just commit a changelog to my repo, I want to transfer some credit to identity X, signed with my identity (private key). I sign the ledger with my private key and commit the entry to the distributed store. Push out the changes to anyone who will listen. If you want to forget my identity and transactions, you may, but if I'm credit worthy, my identity will probably be remembered and followed. Github could remember a repo for each of us, but users of the network would want to mirror the repos, index the repos, and keep an eye out for modified histories. I imagine there are likely problem(s) with the idea, can someone explain the problem?

danbruc 9y ago
The problem is, where do your coins come from? Who or what is allowed to bring coins into existence and what prevents them from just creating as many as they like? The second problem is, how do you resolve conflicting transactions spending the same coins?
- state_less 9y ago
  There wouldn't be any coins, instead double entry accounting I (pubkey:ae32...) owe (pubkey:af41...) 10 US dollars. Medium of exchange is agreed upon by the two parties, USD is one option. If you're my friend or a business, and you see my balance is deeply negative, maybe you don't give some service. If your my friend or a business, and my credit is not too bad, you follow my repo and give me some service. You commit a change that says, (pubkey:ae32...) paid (pubkey:af41...) 10 US dollars and reference my repo and commit. I don't think there could be double spending because the receiver of the money acknowledges the credit offer on record (the git repo that paid). If there are identities and entries in my ledger that are questionable, maybe you don't count them. For example, you might say credit only counts from those identities that are willing to answer a two-factor sms challenge. Or, if my git repo is credited by a google account, that's something worthwhile that could count toward my balance.
  - PKop 9y ago
    "There wouldn't be any coins" "USD is one option" And now you have no restriction on the money supply.. USD is coins.
    - state_less 9y ago
      Use something else if you prefer, gold or you could even sit atop bitcoin if parties find that more agreeable to transact in. If I say I owe bitcoin, that's a transaction where I cash into bitcoin and then resolve my debt via bitcoin, but do I want my debt in bitcoin, maybe, but the value does vary more than USD. A credit agency might not care if you improve your credit (by paying or resolving debts) in bitcoin, or may also give the option of cash or some other cheaper transaction form.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    So the entire thing starts with everyone having a balance of zero. Then A signs a transaction that he gives $1000 to B and we broadcast that transaction, new balances A $-1000, B $+1000. Now B wants to buy something for $500 from C and signs a matching transaction. What does C do? Is A a bank that provided a $1000 loan and therefore C will be able to actually get $500 from A? Or are A and B one and the same poor guy who just created two keys and invented $1000 out of thin air? Maybe I am missing something but I have no idea how that could ever work unless this is essentially just the current banking system were I know that A is a trustworthy bank and I will be able to redeem your $500 check. Augmented with the anti-feature that we are now all broadcasting our balances and all our transactions to everyone.
    - state_less 9y ago
      The important part is A signed over to B $1000. B and C may be the same person. B wanting to do business as C. If A, B and C are all the same person and there wasn't an identity attached to any account, outsiders wouldn't value the record much, especially if they were transactions of significant value. C could redeem the value with Western Union (or similar agent). They might say you have to agree to sign the closure of the account to no longer modify the balance of the account. They'd basically be like a collections agency, buying debt. You'd be able to have similar plausible deniability as Bitcoin. Coinbase sees the transaction flows and the ledger is public. You could do business as a pseudo identity ( Do business as C, if you're B )
pdpi 9y ago
No because it’s not an identity problem: both transactions are posted by the legitimate owner of the keys. Modified histories are not that simple to deal with, because network propagation times mean that I can broadcast two different transactions to different parts of the network and base the attack on the ensuing race to reach consensus.
sethgecko 9y ago
That's kind of how NANO (previously Raiblocks) works. One ledger per address.

danbruc 9y ago

The problem is, where do your coins come from? Who or what is allowed to bring coins into existence and what prevents them from just creating as many as they like? The second problem is, how do you resolve conflicting transactions spending the same coins?

state_less 9y ago
There wouldn't be any coins, instead double entry accounting I (pubkey:ae32...) owe (pubkey:af41...) 10 US dollars. Medium of exchange is agreed upon by the two parties, USD is one option. If you're my friend or a business, and you see my balance is deeply negative, maybe you don't give some service. If your my friend or a business, and my credit is not too bad, you follow my repo and give me some service. You commit a change that says, (pubkey:ae32...) paid (pubkey:af41...) 10 US dollars and reference my repo and commit. I don't think there could be double spending because the receiver of the money acknowledges the credit offer on record (the git repo that paid). If there are identities and entries in my ledger that are questionable, maybe you don't count them. For example, you might say credit only counts from those identities that are willing to answer a two-factor sms challenge. Or, if my git repo is credited by a google account, that's something worthwhile that could count toward my balance.
- PKop 9y ago
  "There wouldn't be any coins" "USD is one option" And now you have no restriction on the money supply.. USD is coins.
  - state_less 9y ago
    Use something else if you prefer, gold or you could even sit atop bitcoin if parties find that more agreeable to transact in. If I say I owe bitcoin, that's a transaction where I cash into bitcoin and then resolve my debt via bitcoin, but do I want my debt in bitcoin, maybe, but the value does vary more than USD. A credit agency might not care if you improve your credit (by paying or resolving debts) in bitcoin, or may also give the option of cash or some other cheaper transaction form.
- danbruc 9y ago
  So the entire thing starts with everyone having a balance of zero. Then A signs a transaction that he gives $1000 to B and we broadcast that transaction, new balances A $-1000, B $+1000. Now B wants to buy something for $500 from C and signs a matching transaction. What does C do? Is A a bank that provided a $1000 loan and therefore C will be able to actually get $500 from A? Or are A and B one and the same poor guy who just created two keys and invented $1000 out of thin air? Maybe I am missing something but I have no idea how that could ever work unless this is essentially just the current banking system were I know that A is a trustworthy bank and I will be able to redeem your $500 check. Augmented with the anti-feature that we are now all broadcasting our balances and all our transactions to everyone.
  - state_less 9y ago
    The important part is A signed over to B $1000. B and C may be the same person. B wanting to do business as C. If A, B and C are all the same person and there wasn't an identity attached to any account, outsiders wouldn't value the record much, especially if they were transactions of significant value. C could redeem the value with Western Union (or similar agent). They might say you have to agree to sign the closure of the account to no longer modify the balance of the account. They'd basically be like a collections agency, buying debt. You'd be able to have similar plausible deniability as Bitcoin. Coinbase sees the transaction flows and the ledger is public. You could do business as a pseudo identity ( Do business as C, if you're B )

pdpi 9y ago

No because it’s not an identity problem: both transactions are posted by the legitimate owner of the keys. Modified histories are not that simple to deal with, because network propagation times mean that I can broadcast two different transactions to different parts of the network and base the attack on the ensuing race to reach consensus.

sethgecko 9y ago

That's kind of how NANO (previously Raiblocks) works. One ledger per address.