bitcoinpriorart

> Building the secure computer-communication infrastructures necessary to provide adequate technological underpinnings demanded by these requirements would be enormously complex and is far beyond the experience and current competency of the field. Even if such infrastructures could be built, the risks and costs of such an operating environment may ultimately prove unacceptable. In addition, these infrastructures would generally require extraordinary levels of human trustworthiness.

Trustless systems? Without the risk of SSL X.509 PKI CA cert compromise?

Do the Bitcoin and Ethereum concepts and implementations of 'Gas', multisignatures, contracts, distributed storage and computing, and cryptographic primitives also solve for part of these problems?

AFAIU, Ripple handles escrow without transaction fees for multiple transactions (2016 "SusPay"); and maintains the transaction history within the distributed ledger: https://ripple.com/build/escrow/

I included links to Bitcoin BIP32 Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets (2012) and a description in another thread here. Is this HD Wallets with different terminology? Are they talking about transferring wallets keys instead of balances? If so, do they update the AML information with the exchange? You should never share your private key(s).

re: "Supreme Court Update: New Standard for Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages Under 35 U.S.C. §284" (2016 "Halo") https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts...

> Though the Court’s unanimous opinion gives district courts wider latitude to apply enhanced damages under the abuse-of-discretion standard, a concurrence by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, suggests at least two judicial limitations to that discretion: (1) mere knowledge of the patent is insufficient to support enhanced damages; and (2) “enhanced damages may not serve to compensate patentees for infringement-related costs or litigation expenses.”

There should be no IP reason to stop using Bitcoin HD Wallets for handling multiple Bitcoin accounts due to the linked patent filing because Bitcoin HD Wallets existed four (4) years prior to what seems to be described in the patent abstract copied to this thread.

That would require one to read the patent, which could be used as evidence of willful infringement.

If someone else could read it and file a prior art brief/notification - if appropriate - that'd be helpful.

Bitcoin transactions support multiple inputs and multiple outputs (transactions involving multiple input and multiple output "accounts").

For example, Satoshi Nakamoto would need to use multiple accounts as inputs for any single transaction greater than 50 BTC. Those accounts were created prior to the development of the Hierarchical Deterministic Wallet spec (BIP32) [0]. From reading only the abstract cross-posted here, it sounds like the linked patent filling from 2016 is describing something very similar to the "Per-office balances: m/iH" use case described in BIP32 [1]; which is indeed prior art from 2012 [0].

With Bitcoin HD Wallets, there is no distinction between a private key and an account. With an HD Wallet, there is a private parent key and there are private child keys which are derived from the private parent key. Each private child key is a distinct "account". Multiple Bitcoin wallet softwares support the 2012 BIP32 HD Wallet spec.

[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawi...

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawi...