Quote from: genie854 on October 23, 2018, 09:53:43 AM

Quote from: zityx23 on October 23, 2018, 02:55:38 AM

Quote from: genie854 on October 23, 2018, 01:24:57 AM

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/23/2018

What are the pros and cons for UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH) systems?

UTXO

1. Higher degree of privacy: if a user uses a new address for each transaction that they receive then it can be difficult to link accounts to each other. Although some wallets (JAXX eth) can have multiple addresses, this has not benen brought up yet with Eth official wallet. Once a transaction is done, though it is recorded there, one cannot do anything about it.
2. Potential scalability paradigms: UTXOs are more theoretically compatible with certain kinds of scalability paradigms in such that it uses only one proof of owner ship in the Merkle tree.

ETH accounts

1.Large space savings: because every transaction need only make one reference and one signature and produces one output unlike UTXO's that could probably have 2 more reference for output.
2. Greater fungibility: because there is no blockchain-level concept of the source of a specific set of coins, it becomes less practical to institute a redlist/blacklisting scheme. I believe freedom is one of the concept of Etheruem and creating a restriction on coins of where they come from is not invluded in their function.
3. Simplicity: it seems easier to code and understand, especially once more complex scripts become involved. Unlike UTXO, it doesn't require proof from the Merkle tree.
4. Constant light client reference: light clients can at any point access all data related to an account by scanning down the state tree in a specific direction. In UTXO paradigm, every transaction leads to another reference therefore crating a system with more privacy than ease of tracking.

So any ideas on which way TAU should go?

TAU is very unique therefore in choosing an accounting system, the team should consider some unique properties of it as well so that copying another's transaction system will not benefit or introduce its uniqueness. I am suggesting a NEW model that could help the system. but first, here are a few points that we should take note carefully.

1. Will it promote a higher and better degree of privacy than bitcoin/etheruem?
2. Will it be able to handle massive transactions in the future?
3. Will it promote foundational platforms/programs/apps?
4. Will it promote fungibility?
5. Will it take too much space for storage and consumption?
6. Will it be user friendly? Simple yet complete?

While the invention/foundation/development of TaU is based on POT as consensus mechanism, its accounting model should be solely based on it as well. And here's what I suggest. (Anyway I'm not a developer or something related so I might sound superficial with my suggestion)

a. TAU needs a totally different blockchain explorer.

b. It needs to have an "expiration" on TAU hodlers. A cheque model to be exact wherein a cheque is only valid for up to six months. After that,
   the cheque is invalid. (Since a cheque is only a representation of the real value in a bank account, the unspent cheque will not affect the
   total amount and value of money in the owners bank account). In such a case, a transaction will also have an expiration once it was verified
   and the given timeframe arrives therefore acknowledging that the previous transaction is already verified by the system.

c. Since this is a POT mechanism, hoarding and hodling should not be encouraged while promoting/advocating transaction consumption. This
   could be done by another mechanism called "automatic transfer" into an owners account. Every after an "expiration", the system will
   automatically transfer the balance to another account that should be linked to the first one. Two or more accounts for each owner is
   inevitable for this scenario as this system will promote a higher security and privacy as well and promote transactions even for inactive
   users without the fear of losing each one's coins

d. Tau's window size should be modified for this system. A faster "expiration" leads to a faster "automatic transfer" and it leads to a higher
   security as stated above. Anything that has to do with a one-year period of time in TAU's white-paper should be modified as well for this
   purposes.

e. Any complete transaction and expired non-transaction will eventually must be deleted from the system and the blockchain (or nodes) must
   have a consensus to ensure that a transaction is complete or a non-transaction is expired. This will promote data-saving properties as it will
   not consume large amounts of data to hold information.

f. With this system in TAUs blockchain, it will be easier to produce or generate an app/program/alternative coin in so that it's simplicity over
   other existing cryptocurrency will be highly valued.

g. Applications/program and other products and services to be used on top of TAUs blockchain should consider its uniquenees in order to fully
   utilized its function. In case of a gaming app, suggestions above should be considered (e.g. having an internal and external wallet for
   automatic transfer, in case of stagnant activity) so that panic will not be in any occasion.

h. During a complete transaction where the sender sends all or a part of his balance onto the receivers wallet, both wallets will serve as a
   fresh base for the countdown of an "expiration".

I still have more to know about this NEW suggestion that I just gave but in case my statements above made no sense at all, the team should AT LEAST try to accommodate a combination of the two commonly used models for accounting and have in mind the BEST scenario for that purpose. Ranking TAUs priorities should be evaluated in order to choose in which accounting model to use. If, for example security and privacy is of higher priority that its simplicity and mass usage, go for UTXO as base models but not completely ignoring ETH accounts strenghts.