Author: Gregory Maxwell 2012-09-11 23:22:05
Published on: 2012-09-11T23:22:05+00:00
The email conversation starts with a suggestion that instead of using inventory vectors to request transactions, messages can be used instead. The benefit of this is that it saves space and reduces the number of headers needed for each transaction. However, it is pointed out that most transactions are already in possession, so there may not be a need to request them.The discussion then moves on to talk about the idea of bitcoin banks maintaining trust through Open Transaction contracts which contain proof of agreement, providing legal protection. It is noted that while Open Transactions can prove how much "gold certificates" a bank has issued, global consensus is still required to prove how much 'gold' exists and which keys hold it. This is where Bitcoin comes in, as it provides certainty that something will be done right and helps prevent fractional reserve fraud.The conversation also touches on Ripple, which is a sort of a peer-to-peer hawala system where you have pairwise trust and debt. It can allow tokens to circulate between a community of users and only settle infrequently against Bitcoin.It is mentioned that Bitcoin banks already exist in a centralized form like Mt. Gox codes and user to user instant transfers. While Bitcoin is useful, an extra system of some kind is needed to securely irreversible transactions that are reliably fast.The email exchange concludes by stating that while Bitcoin scales fine, it cannot replace everything and is not a good replacement for a credit network. Block sizes may be raised in the future, but it must be uncontroversial that doing so won't significantly degrade decentralization or mining economics. Overall, the conversation covers various aspects of Bitcoin, Open Transactions, and Ripple, pointing out their strengths and limitations.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T04:11:09.209345+00:00