Hi ZmnSCPxj first of all, excuse me for my delayed answer.
I think I posted to the wrong address the first time (I’m mainly a lurker in the list, so I make gotchas like that…) Let me address your points. > It also means that to register an account, you need to either own some > Bitcoins, or rent some Bitcoins to serve as signalling (and then potentially > have to change your account identifier later when the lease expires). I don’t understand what you mean by ‘renting’ Bitcoins. Once you commit the account transaction, the account ID never changes. (Also, you don’t need to own Bitcoins if you use a Master Easypaysy Account. See my comments later on). > Finally, use of the blockchain layer is costly; given that payees must be > online at any time payers wish to pay, it may do better to just use Lightning > instead, That is not the case. When using non-interactive payments, the payee doesn’t need to be online at all. Even for interactive payments, it depends on the protocol you use. For Bitmessage, or email, or even MQTT you don’t need to be online simultaneously. (The interactive protocol(s) is still open, however, those are just some hypothetical examples): Anyway, when using interactive payments, the payee has the option to specify an LN invoice and/or a bitcoin address. > which has the same requirement, but moves payments to a separate layer as > well, and requires only a single onchain transaction to construct a channel > (easypaysy seems to require at least 2, one to anchor the account pubkeys, > the other to give the basic "activation" information for the account). Easypaysy accounts don’t need 2 TXs. They need funding plus a TX for the account information itself. So, you need an UTXO -to fund the account- and a TX. But the UTXO can be one of many in the same transaction. So, you could fund multiple accounts with a single TX. > Also, one of the contact-information protocols supported should probably be > Tor hidden services, instead of `https`. Tor hidden services have better > useability (no need for port forwarding or registering DNS from some > centralized service), with privacy as a bonus. Easypaysy is protocol agnostic (for now). So, Tor is definitely a possibility. > Further it seems insufficient to only encode block and tx index. I think it > should also encode output index, to also allow a single transaction to anchor > multiple accounts. Also consider using the Lightning encoding of identifying > an output: 543847x636x2 There is really no need to specify an additional output. If I am right, you can’t have more than one OP_RETURN per transaction. On the other hand, as you can see in the white paper “4.2 Master accounts”, these type of accounts allow for up to 2048 accounts per transaction. The format of the ID in this case is: btc@master_idx.slave_id/checksum The master_idx is an ordinal pointer (not positional) to the Master TX, while the slave_id points to one of the 2048 transactions within the account (whose information is stored elsewhere, protected by a Merkle root committed in the Master Tx) There is a little bit more to it that seems appropriate to discuss here, please have a look at page 25 of the white paper. Thanks for your input. Best regards, José Femenías _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
