Thanks, an interesting read.

The main reason why this isn't very feasable at the moment is due to tx id malleability (as the ECDSA signature is included in the tx id and the same tx can be signed with a different valid signature because ECDSA approach used by pretty much all Bitcoin wallets includes a "random" number).
I see. So if I get it right, this could lead to a double spend, by creating two similar (inputs, outputs # of coins) transactions with separate txids?