Hal Finney wrote: > > * Spammer botnets could burn through pay-per-send email filters > > trivially > If POW tokens do become useful, and especially if they become money, > machines will no longer sit idle. Users will expect their computers to > be earning them money (assuming the […]
Read moreCategory: Cryptography Mailing List
Re: Bitcoin v0.1 released
Dustin D. Trammell wrote: > > Satoshi Nakamoto wrote: > > You know, I think there were a lot more people interested in the 90’s, > > but after more than a decade of failed Trusted Third Party based systems > > (Digicash, etc), they see it as a lost […]
Read moreBitcoin v0.1 released
Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-spending. It’s completely decentralized with no server or central authority. See bitcoin.org for screenshots. Download link: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bitcoin/bitcoin-0.1.0.rar Windows only for now. Open source C++ code is included. – Unpack the files into […]
Read moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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 moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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 moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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 moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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 moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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 moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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 moreRe: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
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