From 073206e71522a6d6212c10aabd92cae31c71f86c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bitcoina Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:41:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Replace "wallet" with "address", in relation to hashcash's unilateral channel proposal. (#47) * Update ch01.asciidoc Propose to replace the comment regarding multi-sig wallet, with multi-sig transaction. * Update ch01.asciidoc --- ch01.asciidoc | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/ch01.asciidoc b/ch01.asciidoc index 6812b4a..510801d 100644 --- a/ch01.asciidoc +++ b/ch01.asciidoc @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Effectively the most recent update of the payment channel (encoded as a bitcoin In July of 2011, on the bitcointalk.org forum, a pseudonomous user by the name of _hashcoin_ proposed the usage of Timelocks via the `nLockTime` function of the bitcoin network to solve the custody problem of exchanges.footnote:[Hashcoin on Bitcoin talk on July 4th 2011 - Instant TX for established business relationships (need replacements/nLockTime) http://web.archive.org/web/20190419103503/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25786.0] The idea was to be able to quickly trade / sell Bitcoin without the necessity to send all the bitcoins to the exchange in the first place. Hashcoin effectively proposed what we would call an unidirectional payment channel today. -With this mechanism a user A could fund a multisig wallet between A and another user B together with a timelocked transaction sending all Bitcoin Back to A. +With this mechanism a user A could fund a multisig address between A and another user B together with a timelocked transaction sending all Bitcoin Back to A. The funding tx would not be signed and broadcasted by A before B provided a signature for the spend. Hashcoin imagined user B to be an exchange. Whenever user A wanted to send Bitcoin to user B user A could create a newer spend of the funding transaction which would send less Bitcoin back to A and more bitcoin to B.