Quote from: syncmaster913n on August 08, 2017, 05:18:20 PM

Guys, over at the Sumokoin Telegram we're having a discussion about new potential safety and anonymity features for Sumokoin. These are suggestions made by the community - we do not speak for the developers. With this in mind, we'd like to hear what everyone else over here thinks about the following:

SOS transfer: The idea is to have a "fake" wallet password which, if you were to divulge it to someone and that person were to use the "fake" password to access your wallet, an SOS transfer would be triggered, automatically and instantly withdrawing all of your SUMO to a secondary wallet that only you know about. Alternatively, instead of having a "fake" password for this, there could be some sort of simple puzzle (like mouse-clicking on 3 or 4 small images in a certain order) that only the wallet owner knows how to solve. You would be required to solve the puzzle before or after accessing the wallet with your password. If the puzzle is not solved correctly, the SOS transfer is initiated and all SUMO are transferred to the secondary wallet. (This would help against some keylogging attempts.)

Embeded Escrow: The idea behind this is to avoid situations where trusted third-party payment escrow providers are tempted to steal the funds when a large transaction is involved, thereby reducing trust in the ecosystem and causing significant losses. With an Embeded Escrow feature, the escrow service provider would never be in control of the escrowed funds. The buyer/seller/escrow would initiate an Escrow Transaction, and a special Escrow Address would be created, after which the buyer would send the funds to the Escrow Address. The escrow provider would then receive a password, which can be used to do only one of two things: either release the funds from the Escrow Address to the seller, or return the funds to the buyer if the seller does not deliver the goods. The Escrow provider has no way of withdrawing the funds to his own address or using them any other way. Upon releasing the funds, the escrow provider receives his agreed-upon fee for his services.

Risk Management Feature: Large merchants have a lot to risk. If they lose access to their wallet or an unauthorized party gains access to it, their losses can be catastrophic. Some merchants might choose to control their risks by spreading out their balance across multiple Wallets so that if one is compromised, at least the remaining walltes should be OK. The Risk Management Feature would do exactly that: the merchant would create extra wallets, and whenever they receive a transfer to their main wallet, the transfer amount would be broken up into equal chunks, each of which is sent to one of the other wallts. For example: merchant creates 3 separate wallts in addition to their main wallet, making for 4 wallets in total. Merchant then activates the Risk Management Feature in their main wallet and and inputs the 3 wallet addresses in the settings. Now the merchant receives a transfer of, say, 100 SUMO, to his main wallet (the one with Risk Management enabled). The Risk Management system automatically divides the payment into four chunks of 25 SUMO each. One chunk remains in his primary wallet, the second chunk goes to the second wallet, third chunk to third wallet, and fourth chunk to fourth wallet.

Please let us know what you think, and please consider using the follwing Strawpoll to let us know which of the three features you find most interesting: http://www.strawpoll.me/13658077/r

And make sure to let us know if you have any other ideas - you can do it here or in Telegram. Thanks.

I don't do Telegram so I will offer my 2 cents worth of advice here -

SOS transfer:
Interesting idea! If you decide to do it I would recommend that this feature be optional, and disabled by default. Why? Two main reasons - 1. it increases administration complexity in an already steep learning curve for average users; 2. by increasing the complexity of the code you are increasing the attack surface for hackers.

Embeded Escrow:
This one is tricky because it does not make provision for possible collusion between the escrow provider and one or the other part. I think the best solution would be a 100% automated, but that would require some foolproof method to assure that ownership was actually transferred for the funds to be released (maybe something like online integration with shipping company tracking numbers or online title registration for property?). I think this would be really difficult to do since some degree of centralization (bonded escrow, reputation, whatever...) would be required, and it certainly would not work in every situation.

Risk Management Feature:
Personally I would not throw a lot of energy into this one since I don't think it offers much benefit over doing the same thing manually. The merchant has to do the bookkeeping entry anyway, so they could just as easily attach different wallets to the ledger themselves if risk management is a concern.

Wink