James A. Donald wrote: > > Fortunately, it’s only necessary to keep a > > pending-transaction pool for the current best branch. > > This requires that we know, that is to say an honest > well behaved peer whose communications and data storage > is working well knows, what […]

Read more

Ray Dillinger wrote: > One way to do this would be > to have the person recieving the coin generate an asymmetric > key pair, and then have half of it published with the > transaction. In order to spend the coin later, s/he must > demonstrate posession of the […]

Read more

I’ll try and hurry up and release the sourcecode as soon as possible to serve as a reference to help clear up all these implementation questions. Ray Dillinger (Bear) wrote: > When a coin is spent, the buyer and seller digitally sign a (blinded) > transaction record. Only the buyer […]

Read more

Hal Finney wrote: > I think it is necessary that nodes keep a separate > pending-transaction list associated with each candidate chain. > … One might also ask … how many candidate chains must > a given node keep track of at one time, on average? Fortunately, it’s only necessary […]

Read more

James A. Donald wrote: > It is not sufficient that everyone knows X. We also > need everyone to know that everyone knows X, and that > everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows X > – which, as in the Byzantine Generals problem, is the > classic hard […]

Read more

James A. Donald wrote: > So what happened to the coin that lost the race? > > … it is a bit harsh if the guy who came second > is likely to lose his coin. When there are multiple double-spent versions of the same transaction, one and only one […]

Read more

James A. Donald wrote: > Furthermore, it cannot be made to work, as in the > proposed system the work of tracking who owns what coins > is paid for by seigniorage, which requires inflation. If you’re having trouble with the inflation issue, it’s easy to tweak it for transaction […]

Read more

James A. Donald wrote: >OK, suppose one node incorporates a bunch of >transactions in its proof of work, all of them honest >legitimate single spends and another node incorporates a >different bunch of transactions in its proof of >work, all of them equally honest legitimate single >spends, and both proofs […]

Read more

James A. Donald wrote: > The core concept is that lots of entities keep complete and consistent > information as to who owns which bitcoins. > > But maintaining consistency is tricky. It is not clear to me what > happens when someone reports one transaction to one maintainer, and […]

Read more

Hal Finney wrote: > it is mentioned that if a broadcast transaction does not reach all nodes, > it is OK, as it will get into the block chain before long. How does this > happen – what if the node that creates the “next” block (the first node > […]

Read more