Author: ZmnSCPxj 2023-09-18 03:37:46+00:00
Published on: 2023-09-18T03:37:46+00:00
The email discusses the fidelity bond of M and the need to separately lock it to `(M && B) || (M && CSV(1 year))`. It mentions that the actuary would have to lock new funds before the end of the time period to prevent participants from closing the mechanism with the latest state. The bond would also have to be replicated for each participant, which reduces scalability.The sender expresses a desire to explore alternatives to the "sign-only-once" mechanism. They explain that they want a mechanism that allows the always-online party (referred to as the "actuary") to only select transactions and not move coins without consent. The closest they have come to this is in a proof-of-work blockchain, where miners can only select transactions and cannot authorize moves without owner consent.The sender concludes by stating their goal of replicating this functionality to reduce interactivity requirements, without resorting to a proof-of-work blockchain.Overall, the email raises the issue of the fidelity bond and scalability, and suggests exploring alternative mechanisms that align with the desired behavior of a proof-of-work blockchain.
Updated on: 2023-09-19T01:55:41.338067+00:00