Quote from: fluidjax on August 04, 2016, 07:42:56 PM

Quote from: franky1 on August 04, 2016, 07:13:10 AM

each person creates a priv/pub keypair and only sends each other the public keys to generate a new multisig public key.
(keep the privkeys a secret, obviously)
they both put funds into the multisig

and then both create the transaction to "spend" the inputs.. and ofcourse both sign it..

obviously if they both dont sign it they both cant spend it.
if you dont see your getting the amount you want. then ofcourse you dont sign it. meaning the other person cant get what they want either.
by both signing it means they both agree to the transaction.

but with that said. its stupid to think swapping/mixing coins needs to be complex or that swapping/mixing coins makes you invisible/anonymous

Isn't the problem here, "they both put funds into the multisig"

Bob puts his 1BTC into the multisig.
Alice claims she is putting it in but doesn't.
Now Alice can hold the Bob's 1BTC ransom, she could demand 50% or she won't sign.

So, how can you guarantee the atomicity of the "they both put funds into the multisig"? or that Bob can remove his coins if Alice doesn't transfer.

same can be said for any escrow service
same can be said for any swap/mixer service
same can be said for any thing really.

this is why LN(a multisig tool) is meant to be the solution to the problems described, although its yet to be seen.
LN's solution is that if funds are not signed for and broadcast to the network within a certain period.. the funds can be send back to sender automatically because a setup transaction is presigned to allow that.

as i said yet to be seen to know if LN is as infallible as advertised. but if so LN will do the things people want in regards to mixing/swapping