[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