Good morning Jose,
> > 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). If you have 0 Bitcoins, you need to have *some* Bitcoins from somewhere else (perhaps a service provider) in order to back the initial funding transaction output. If you create Master Easypaysy account by paying fiat to some service provider that then uses its Bitcoins to fund your Easypaysy account, but requires some sort of shared control over the money in it, I simply call this "renting" the Bitcoin, as presumably the service provider would want to get its coins back from you. If you are referring to the use of a service provider, then the service provider at least partially controls your account and if it ceases to exist or refuses to continue doing business with you, you need to transfer your account identifier somehow (i.e. end of lease). > > > 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): You could indicate use of some kind of pay-to-contract, then have the payer send the contract text to the payee so that the payee can claim the funds later. > 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. Yes, that is why I count it as 2 transactions: one transaction to host the funding UTXO that is referred to in the account identifier, and the other transaction is what broadcasts the account information (in particular, the funding UTXO is a P2SH and the transaction that spends it is the one that reveals the 2 pubkeys you require). In contrast, Lightning Network requires only the funding UTXO (which requires that short channel IDs include the transaction output index, as a single funding transaction can fund multiple Lightning Network channels). > But the UTXO can be one of many in the same transaction. > So, you could fund multiple accounts with a single TX. So can Lightning Network channels: multiple channels can be funded by a single funding transactions (C-Lightning supports this, but not as a single command yet, it requires some low-level fiddling). > > 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. I suggest being Tor-centric instead. > > > 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. This does not mesh with your earlier claim: > But the UTXO can be one of many in the same transaction. My understanding is that the account identifier refers to the funding TXO (and funding transactions do not have an `OP_RETURN`, so I fail to see the relevance of that restriction). If the funding transaction can have many UTXOs that are individually funding TXOs of multiple Easypaysy accounts, then you need to refer to *which* TXO of that funding transaction is what you are using. > > 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. Why would it not be appropriate? In case of such a "Master TX", would it be possible for each slave to be independently controlled by a different party? Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
