I have had a very similar idea to the concepts discussed here. I had started a thread but missed to find this one here, so I have deleted the thread an quoting myself here:
[quote="“d5000"”]I had recently an idea how it could be possible to allow to do PoS minting with the coin-age of a “cold wallet”, that would be probably simpler than Sunny King’s “cold locked transaction” feature. It would allow to store most of your coins in a secure offline wallet and at the same time benefit from the coins in it.
(For those who don’t know about the “cold locked transaction” concept: You have two private keys/addresses, “cold” address and “hot” address. The “hot” address is connected to the Internet for PoS minting/forging. But you may want to have most of your coins in your secure, “cold” address with the private key hold in cold storage. Now you can do a “cold-locked” transaction from the cold address to hot address, so you can use the coin-age of these coins to generate PoS coins. The coins sent in a cold-locked transaction can only be spent on the address that sent them (= your “cold” address). So you can have “cold” address in cold storage (without connection) as it’s the only address at risk, and “hot” address can happily mint PoS coins.
We can say that in this kind of transaction we have transfered the “coin-age” of the “cold” address to the “hot” address to benefit from PoS minting without putting the coins at risk. In other words, it’s a way to demonstrate to the system that we have the private key of both addresses and want only one of them to be connected to the network for PoS minting, so the other private key is not at risk.)
Now possibly there is a simpler way to do this:
Instead of doing a special transaction (the “cold-locked transaction”) of some coins from the “cold” address to the “hot” address, we could add only the coin-age of the “cold” address to the “hot” address. In other words, we would register the “cold” address with the client which contains the “hot” address, but without to give it access to the private key of the “cold” address. For this purpose, we would send the client a message signed with the private key of the “cold” address which would be stored in the blockchain like a transaction, but without moving any coins. When other clients connected to the network see this message, they would then add automatically the coin-age of the “cold” address to the coin-age of “hot” address.
Respect to the original “cold-locked transaction” proposal, I think this approach has the advantage that we don’t need to deal with two different kinds of transactions in the core PPC system. Only the “PoS algorithm” of the clients would have to deal with the coin-age of the “cold” address. There would be no “different kind of coins” in the hot address like the coins transferred in a cold-locked transaction which cannot be spent freely.
The PoS algorithm of the client would have to check the (actualized) coin-age of all “cold” addresses at every block, but no client would have access to the coins in it (=not having access to the private key), only to the message signed with this key. When we move the coins from the “cold” address, the network would register this and the “hot” address would lose the coin-age transferred to it from the “cold” address.
Also there must be a mechanism to avoid that someone tries to PoS mint with both addresses. So the PoS algorithm would have to block addresses which have transferred their coin-age to another address.
What do you think? Is this alternative simpler to implement than the original cold-locked-transaction concept? Or does it have a problem somewhere?
The only disadvantage I see is that the PoS algorithm would probably be a bit more complex having to check multiple addresses for one unit of “coin-age”, but a the other hand the transaction system itself would not have to be modified.[/quote]
Your proposal is pretty similar to mine, with two differences:
- the transaction fee
- the “blocking” of the coins in cold storage. In my variant the PoS algorithm would have to check the cold-storage address’ balance (and coin-days) permanently as coins can be moved anytime.
Your proposal is more similar to Sunny King’s “cold-locked transaction” approach, as coins are “locked” and “unlocked” with a special transaction, but it differs from it in that the balance will not form part of the balance of the “hot wallet”.