[Lucrative-L] lucrative accounts revisited
Patrick Chkoreff
patrick at fexl.com
Thu Apr 24 12:52:28 PDT 2003
On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 01:57 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> Again, the *only* thing you need to prevent double-spending is a copy
> of the spent coins. Period.
Alternatively, I think a copy of the non-spent coins will do the trick
also.
So in your scenario, the predicate valuable(x) = valid_crypto_stamp(x)
& not element(x, spent_coins).
In my scenario, valuable(x) = element(x, unspent_coins).
Why store the large set of spent coins when you can store the much
smaller set of unspent coins?
There's no security issue I don't think. In my scheme the bad guys can
torture you and get access to the hash file, yes, but what's the point?
They still have to mount a multi-million dollar collision attack.
It's much easier just to seize the gold in the vaults than fiddle
around with some pathetic bits on a server. Or if the digital coins
are backed by something like e-bullion they can just torture you for
the e-bullion password.
> Anything else costs money.
>
> Transaction cost is everything.
I don't understand your point here. Why are my transaction costs
greater than yours? They might even be less. The disk usage might be
less, too.
-- Patrick
http://fexl.com
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list