Just noticed that sigmike cold storage proposal is already one year old. Time goes by so quickly.
[member=30141]sigmike[/member]: as asked here, could it be made compatible with multisig addresss so the spending could be validated by several signers?
Thanx for your help.
EDIT: at first sight it looks like it could work with a multisig spending address, could you confirm that?
The current implementation doesnât support it but it could be done. A new standard script would have to be defined. The currently proposed one only supports pay-to-pubkey-hash in both the spending and minting keys. A new standard script could probably allow spending through a pay-to-script-hash, but nesting scripts may be challenging. It may be easier to explicitly make a new standard script âcold minting with multisig spendingâ. It could even be the only allowed cold minting script, and you would just use a â1 of 1 multisigâ when you donât want multisig.
The current implementation doesnât support it but it could be done. A new standard script would have to be defined. The currently proposed one only supports pay-to-pubkey-hash in both the spending and minting keys. A new standard script could probably allow spending through a pay-to-script-hash, but nesting scripts may be challenging. It may be easier to explicitly make a new standard script âcold minting with multisig spendingâ. It could even be the only allowed cold minting script, and you would just use a â1 of 1 multisigâ when you donât want multisig.[/quote]
Yep, future is in multisig.
It would be very interesting to have that new standard script âcold minting with multisig spendingâ.
Thanx again for answering.
Any updates about this proposal??
Sentinelrv posted two quotes from the conversation with Sunny to reply your question at reddit: Is cold locked minting still under development?
Also, Ătzi and mably had a conversation about cold minting at chatbox on 16 December 2015 10:45: See here
I have read this before. But I just want to have some official reply from either Sunny King or Sigmike to confirm that Cold locked minting is not longer consider to add to PPC.
I wish we had cold minting
it is the most essential thing to Peercoin, and will set a precedent.
if i understand correctly cold minting wont be implemented because it will lead to centralization
on the other hand most non technical investors will never take the risk of minting, leading to low security of network
what % of the network is currently minting?
would it be possible to make a client like peerbox that works with trezor? trezor is well respected and regarded as secure by the community at large. if you could mint by connecting your trezor i think most people would do it.
[quote=âsuperppc, post:209, topic:2336â]if i understand correctly cold minting wont be implemented because it will lead to centralization
on the other hand most non technical investors will never take the risk of minting, leading to low security of network
what % of the network is currently minting?
would it be possible to make a client like peerbox that works with trezor? trezor is well respected and regarded as secure by the community at large. if you could mint by connecting your trezor i think most people would do it.[/quote]
wait what would it not decentralize because then everyone with any peercoin could mint risk free.
also removing the need for the checkpoint
maybe the solution could be to have multisig addresses mint. funds could be stored in a 2 of 3 multisig address where you keep 1 key on a pool, 1 on your computer and one in cold storage. if the pool gets hacked the hacker only has 1 key, if you get hacked the hacker has only 1 key, so basically we can have secure minting for users without the risk of cold minting. any ideas?
Multisig doesnât really add anything new. If all keys are required to mint, it just makes minting more complicated and less likely to increase participation.
On the other hand, having one key for minting and one key for spending is essentially the leading idea for how to make this work. The minting key can only sign blocks and canât be used for spending the stake or the reward. (Being unable to spend the reward is important for preventing large centralized pools from gaining an advantage.)
However, the problem with this is and pretty much any proposal thus far is that it theoretically leads to increased incentive for minting on every available fork indefinitely. Without checkpoints, Peercoin could potentially fragment into multiple irreconcilable chains.
I believe that Nu implemented some protections against this that seem to have worked. However, there is another problem as well:
One of Sunnyâs goals is to keep Peercoinâs base protocol as closely aligned with Bitcoin as possible. I believe this is a brilliant decision because it allows Peercoin to ride on the tremendous infrastructure of Bitcoin and to take advantage of upcoming developments such as side-chains. It also positions Peercoin to be an immediate replacement should Bitcoin meet a catastrophic failure. Implementing cold minting keys could potentially interfere with this important alignment.
That being said, I do believe Sunny is interested in cold minting and likely actively testing various solutions. In the meantime, Peerbox with (or even without) Tor is a very secure way to mint right now. There are many ways you are more likely to be robbed than to have someone steal your keys remotely from a Peerbox. (And furthermore, if you own any Peercoin, you should appreciate that you are already risking a total loss by not minting to strengthen the blockchain!)
i would personally never mint in the current scheme of things, the reward doesnât make it worth the risk. if however i could mint with multisig [2 of 3] i would keep letâs say 1 on my computer, 1 on peerbox and one in cold storage as a backup. the risk would be much less as the hacker would need to hack both my computer and the peerbox.
i didnât know about that, thatâs an amazing strategy. does that means that ppc will be compatible with LN out of the box?
I feel everyone should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Shadow
although it is fiction for young adults, peercoin is like bean, a shadow that stays unnoticed
I think the last time Sunny talked about it he said he was still considering including it but he had to think more about it because itâs a significant change in the protocol that will have to be supported forever.
I think learnmore is right here:
But Sunny already made some significant changes in the protocol. Cold minting makes changes in a part he never changed though: the scripts.
I am not sure it will happen that way because it will become POW in the end. see thoughts here Cryptoblog - notĂcias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas!
I am not sure it will happen that way because it will become POW in the end. see thoughts here Cryptoblog - notĂcias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas!
It wouldnât make sense indeed, as in the end their will be only one accepted chain and the revenue is just 1% per year. What a waste of mining resources, it would be stupid to do so.
The 30day minimum prevents this, as it is more profitable to build on the accepted chain only, instead of wasting resources on other chains as you can only get one block per month on the accepted chain, with only one 1% per year total revenue.
Minting multiple chains is by definition less profitable.
Sigmike made another post on this on the Nu forumâŚ
@sigmike, would you explain in a simple way to us what's the pros and cons of cold minting?We should encourage the PoS minting but keeping the private key in memory is a worrying issue for many potential miners.
The obvious pro is you can mint while keeping your spending private keys offline.
Most cons are speculative:
It introduces a change in the protocol that we would have to support forever. It may add development work if itâs broken or during other changes like bitcoin merges. It adds a new script opcode for which I had to pick a number, and this number may conflict with a future feature in bitcoin. I think thatâs the reason it hasnât been merged into Peercoin yet. The problem is less important for Nu and B&C where we already made a lot of changes in the protocol.
It may increase centralization because some people may pay service providers to mint for them to a point where a few important actors mint most of the shares like Bitcoin pools. I think thatâs the reason why Jordan didnât want to include it in Nu. I donât think this will happen though, because it will be easy to set up your own cold minter and because contrary to bitcoin you canât reduce the reward variance by pooling your shares. (Thatâs what I chose in my implementation at least, itâs also possible to make a version that makes variance reduction possible). And in Nu and B&C that would also mean giving your votes to the provider.
Some people think careless users will just publicly release their minting key hoping someone will mint them. But it would not work with my implementation because the person minting could burn the reward, and if more than 1 person is minting the same shares the resulting blocks will be rejected.
I also made some technical choices during implementation that may have pros and cons (and alternatives with different pros and cons), but thatâs probably out of the scope of your question.
Itâs also not finished yet. The Peercoin version lacks the GUI changes to handles cold minting addresses, and it would require some changes to be implemented in Nu and B&C. There was also a suggestion on the Peercoin forum to add support for multisig spending keys. I think itâs a good idea and the implementation should be changed to support that (itâs not a big change).
If you want the full story you can read the long peercointalk thread here: Cryptoblog - notĂcias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas!