0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You can disable trading for restricted UIA as well
Quote from: Agent86 on January 08, 2015, 10:19:49 pmWith reversible transactions, if a hacker got your keys they could set up a script so even if you reverse the transaction to yourself they just keep sending it to themselves again and reverse any transactions you send to anyone else... so perhaps the result is pretty similar to just burning it and burning offers no incentive to the reverser to do it maliciously. An interesting point. I guess if we are talking about hacks and compromised wallets, it could well be that the attacker gains access to the account issuing reversible transactions... in this case the attacker could hold the coins in limbo by repeatedly sending to themselves, but not sure they can do anything to walk away with them? In the worst case this is equivalent to burning them, since they are forever in limbo... but does the attacker have this level of patience?
With reversible transactions, if a hacker got your keys they could set up a script so even if you reverse the transaction to yourself they just keep sending it to themselves again and reverse any transactions you send to anyone else... so perhaps the result is pretty similar to just burning it and burning offers no incentive to the reverser to do it maliciously.
Quote from: theoretical on January 08, 2015, 09:50:37 pmIn version 1.0, when creating a UIA you will be able to specify an optional flag, which will allow the issuer to freeze or revoke any balance in that asset [1]. This is primarily to help gateways [2] comply with regulatory requirements. (Many governments want entities that hold user funds to be able to freeze / confiscate account balances.)In order for this to work in practice, you'd need to disable trading against the UIA with a non reversible asset, otherwise the thief will just trade and withdraw and you'd be back to square one.
In version 1.0, when creating a UIA you will be able to specify an optional flag, which will allow the issuer to freeze or revoke any balance in that asset [1]. This is primarily to help gateways [2] comply with regulatory requirements. (Many governments want entities that hold user funds to be able to freeze / confiscate account balances.)
If it were possible to design a transaction type which was reversible (and fair) it could solve a lot of problems.
Crypto generally aims to let the end user own the value token
In the future you will create something like4 multisig account1 key : on your computer2 key : on your mobile3 key : trusted company (send sms or email for verification)4 key : trusted company (dito)so you have not control of 3 keys to unlock, but no other party. the exchange can operate the same way.
Only after a day passes, would that money actually be their's. Anyone could also see this on the blockchain, so merchants might refuse to accept any money with that property until the reversibility period passed. The money "in their possession" for the period of that day would essentially be the same as no money at all and instead a promise by the exchange to pay them after a day.
Quote from: arhag on January 08, 2015, 08:39:10 pmI don't see how reversible transactions solves any of that? The centralized exchange would just need to have a policy of delaying withdrawals of cryptocurrencies (since they aren't reversible) and being allowed to roll back the order book in the case of theft. Delaying withdrawals is extremely bad for user experience. Exchanges doing this will lose customers to those who do not, which is why you just do not see this in practice.Reversible transactions gives users and exchange owners the best of both worlds.
I don't see how reversible transactions solves any of that? The centralized exchange would just need to have a policy of delaying withdrawals of cryptocurrencies (since they aren't reversible) and being allowed to roll back the order book in the case of theft.
In any case you don't need to 'compromise' the entire system by making all transactions reversible; you could have a special transaction type, or a special account type from which the transactions were reversible within some time window.
If you can reverse transactions you don't have value ownership or decentralization...
These are decisions for the centralized exchanges to make. Certainly none of this requires compromising the properties that people hold valuable in cryptocurrencies.
Quote from: toast on January 08, 2015, 08:18:33 pmIf we have someone we are willing to trust to make decisions about reversing transactions, why use crypto instead of just a normal webapp which tracks user balances?Value ownershipDecentralisationFungabilityetcetc
If we have someone we are willing to trust to make decisions about reversing transactions, why use crypto instead of just a normal webapp which tracks user balances?
Centralised exchanges are not going away, there will always be a place for them - e.g. for traders who like to place and cancel limit orders without being charged.
The centralized exchange already has the ability to roll back the database assuming they had withdraw restrictions to limit how much money was irreversibly taken away from their control. So forget about the example.
Quote from: roadscape on January 08, 2015, 08:04:41 pmCouldn't you do it like this?Issue your own (retractable) asset: PolicedUSDSet up buy/sell walls around 1:1 PolicedUSD:BitUSDIf PolicedUSD is stolen, you (the Police) take it back from the theifIf you convince people that PolicedUSD is safer and your rules are fair, then you have a viable productninja edit: "people" meaning customers and merchantsNo, because what would happen is the thief would just trade the PolicedUSD against bitUSD and withdraw, potentially before the exchange could take action to reverse.
Couldn't you do it like this?Issue your own (retractable) asset: PolicedUSDSet up buy/sell walls around 1:1 PolicedUSD:BitUSDIf PolicedUSD is stolen, you (the Police) take it back from the theifIf you convince people that PolicedUSD is safer and your rules are fair, then you have a viable productninja edit: "people" meaning customers and merchants
Quote from: arhag on January 08, 2015, 08:04:03 pmWhatever "payment" you make, whether it is in exchange for goods/services or the money allocated for a bid/ask order, you would need to create and sign the transaction and send it to the exchange. The exchange could sign that transaction and broadcast it, but they don't until they verify the payment should become irreversible. That simply isn't how centralised exchanges work. In any case, how would you create a bid/ask transaction without knowing who you were going to be matched against? The only type of centralised service that can use a escrow system like this is one that doesn't have any method of internally exchanging value. An online wallet would work fine, but not an exchange.
Whatever "payment" you make, whether it is in exchange for goods/services or the money allocated for a bid/ask order, you would need to create and sign the transaction and send it to the exchange. The exchange could sign that transaction and broadcast it, but they don't until they verify the payment should become irreversible.
Quote from: arhag on January 08, 2015, 07:47:10 pmNow, if you do trust that exchange why not keep your balances in a 2-of-2 multisig where you hold one of the keys and the other key is held by the exchange.Impossible. You could trade within the exchange, make a huge loss and then refuse to release the key to the exchange at withdrawal time, locking up the balance and preventing the exchange from moving the funds out to the winner(s) of all your losing trades.
Now, if you do trust that exchange why not keep your balances in a 2-of-2 multisig where you hold one of the keys and the other key is held by the exchange.
Indeed, imagine that. Having compromised the exchange, the thief would now be able to reverse transactions at will, rather than only making off with the poorly secured funds. What is this "trusted exchange" of which you speak, and if it existed how would theft from it occur in the first place?
Imagine if you could give a trusted exchange the ability to reverse transactions in case of theft?
Quote from: arhag on January 08, 2015, 07:30:27 pmIrreversible transactions are a consequence of the decentralized and autonomous parts of the DAC. How is a DAC supposed to know whether it is "fair" to reverse a transaction when it doesn't know "truths" about the outside world and any "truths" fed into it are the opinions of some party.Escrow and multisig really is good enough. You let the two parties involved in the transaction decide on the arbiter who gets to tell the blockchain whether it is fair to reverse a transaction.The DAC cannot 'know' of course. You need outside input and there are trust issues.I don't think escrow covers all the bases - especially in the case of theft.Imagine if you could give a trusted exchange the ability to reverse transactions in case of theft?
Irreversible transactions are a consequence of the decentralized and autonomous parts of the DAC. How is a DAC supposed to know whether it is "fair" to reverse a transaction when it doesn't know "truths" about the outside world and any "truths" fed into it are the opinions of some party.Escrow and multisig really is good enough. You let the two parties involved in the transaction decide on the arbiter who gets to tell the blockchain whether it is fair to reverse a transaction.
Irreversible transactions are just a consequence of the design rather than a feature. IMO they cause a lot of problems. If it were possible to design a transaction type which was reversible (and fair) it could solve a lot of problems.
There's already escrow, I suppose we could make delegate escrow.But yeah reversible transactions are the #1 thing the crypto space is specifically trying to replace...
QuoteWhat about somehow allowing transactions (or even a special transaction type) to be reversed by delegates, or even reversed by majority vote? There's already escrow, I suppose we could make delegate escrow.
What about somehow allowing transactions (or even a special transaction type) to be reversed by delegates, or even reversed by majority vote?