On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:03:59 PM Tier Nolan wrote: > Due to "popular" demand, I have created a BIP for cross chain atomic > transfers. > > https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki
Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier for these transactions? TX1 and TX2 *cannot* be signed until after TX0 is completely signed by both parties. After TX0 is signed, but before TX2 is signed, either party could walk away or otherwise hold the funds hostage. The sequence of signing proposed in this BIP is *not possible to perform*. How did you implement and test this? :/ What is the purpose of the OP_EQUAL_VERIFY in TX4? I don't see a use... IMO, there should be separate BIPs for the exchange itself, and the protocol to negotiate the exchange. I would recommend changing the latter from JSON-RPC to some extension of the Payment Protocol, if possible. Perhaps it would be good to only support compressed keys, to discourage use of uncompressed ones.. Luke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
