People who code: we want your input. Take the Survey
4

As far as I understand this is not needed. Let us assume we have an congested mempool and someone publishes an old channel state. This transaction will not be mined directly as the mempool is congested. The timelock during which this transaction can be revoked via the penalty mechanism is a relative one and starts as soon as the transaction is mined. So, ...


4

With Bitcoin there are various ways to mitigate the risks and issues you mention to allow some use of payments with zero confirmations instead of waiting for sufficient confirmations to be sure the payment is irreversible. With Ripple, once a transaction is validated it is irreversible. Ripple transactions usually validate within seconds (5-20 seconds ...


4

I think your question is based on the false assumption that there is some 100% safe way to store money that doesn't cost anything. Mt Gox can't stuff your money in their mattress, and even if they did someone could come along and steal the mattress. They have to sensibly balance risk and cost -- zero-risk is not a sensible or achievable goal and is not ...


2

The 'race to the bottom' is still continuing in the mining market and hopefully will continue. If any of the miners tweaks transcation inclusion like you suggest that would make them less competitive in this market. The miners have pretty much no power to enforce transcation fees while the market is functioning as intended, so your question is somewhat moot....


2

If the attacker has minority hashrate, I don't think this is much of a problem. If he excludes all transactions in his blocks but doesn't try to orphan other blocks, the worst thing that can happen is a x2 increase in the average time until first confirmation (no effect on subsequent confirmations). This is fairly minor. If the attacker has majority ...


2

Yes in the sense that any possible security problem that the Bitcoin system might have cannot affect your payment. But in exchange, any security problem that Ripple might have can affect your payment. While it's true that with Ripple you also have counterparty risk, in exchange you have a counterparty guarantee. When you have Bitcoins on the Bitcoin network,...


2

No, you have added another 2 layers of counterparty risk compared to straight bitcoin transactions. So instead of just having to manage risk for a 2 party relationship (customer:vendor) or 3 party (customer:processor:vendor) a business is required to manage a minimum of 4 parties (customer:ripple:btc-conversion:vendor) in a single transaction. Given that ...


1

Yes, there is no limit on setting up multiple wallets. The main disadvantage is that you will need to keep track of numerous separate sets of funds. While it has advantages not to put all your eggs in a single basket, you may want to focus on just a few separate storage solutions for each of which you invest some more time to set up securely.


1

As of 2017, the CME and CBOE offer Bitcoin futures (but not bitcoin cash futures). AFAIK, these are the only regulated future contracts that you'll get. More ways of hedging your exposure to future bitcoin price collapses might be available in the future.


1

The solution is the same regardless of curve or signature algorithm -- reject non-canonical signatures. This is precisely what Bitcoin has decided to do.


1

Bitshrub.com can be added to that list. Settlement is not in Fiat, and liquidity is low currently, but Puts and Calls can be bought and sold. A lot simpler and cheaper than MPEX.


1

Like @David Ogren suggested, you are just supposed to sell part of those coins. Dunno why are you trying to make it so much more complicated.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible