going public with the "pouch" concept
8 views
Skip to first unread message
David Nicol
Mar 16, 2025, 7:40:42 PM3/16/25
to xenan-a...@googlegroups.com
I just posted to the discussion regarding a posted bounty of 30,000 GRIN to whoever can deliver "an offline wallet feature that can be integrated into Android/iPhone mobile devices.The function must be incredibly user-friendly, to the point where utilizing it is as effortless as picking up a pencil and writing."
The bounty is offered at
and today's Grin announcements reminded the world that it remains unclaimed.
The bounty offerer expands "offline wallet" thusly:
Suppose Steve’s phone has a poor internet connection while his friend Larry enjoys lightning-fast 5G internet. Larry wants to send 20 coins to Steve in just a few clicks. Here’s one possible way to accomplish this:
Larry opens his wallet app and selects the offline option to transfer coins.
Larry searches for nearby wallets and selects Steve’s wallet.
Larry inputs the amount of 20 coins and confirms the transaction.
Steve receives a notification that Larry has sent him 20 coins.
“ Think like airdrop function like iPhone “
Steve accepts the coins, and they are instantly added to his wallet balance.
Steve can choose to keep the coins in his wallet or send leave them in the offline function.
Just an idea
Edited:
Would a one-time-usable bearer kind of thing work? Larry would compose the one-time-bearer-thing by crafting a new address, transferring the 20 coins to it, then securely transmitting to Steve the secret key for this “pouch.” It could be written on the back of an envelope – there’s no hurry. I call these lightweight accounts “pouches” and I don’t think anyone else does. Anyway, would a pouch-based approach meet the needs? “double spending” becomes a race to be the first to empty the pouch. Steve and Larry are the only actors in the scenario with the secret key, unless it gets intercepted or something. Assuming Larry isn’t a jerk about it, Steve is the only one who can empty the pouch and he can do it at his convenience, when he has internet access. I doubt you can do the scenario without Steve having to trust Larry. If the two of them are in the same place and Larry is the only one with a working device and Larry is no super-hacker who would be suspected of having a fake lookalike app, Steve can watch Larry craft the pouch before he gets his copy of the key. I realize I may have just described a way to implement “unidirectional payment channel” although not securely. And if Steve gets hit by a bus before he can empty the shared pouch, Larry can “revert” the pouch by emptying it back to his main account. Thoughts?
Would a one-time-usable bearer kind of thing work? Larry would compose the one-time-bearer-thing by crafting a new address, transferring the 20 coins to it, then securely transmitting to Steve the secret key for this “pouch.” It could be written on the back of an envelope – there’s no hurry. I call these lightweight accounts “pouches” and I don’t think anyone else does. Anyway, would a pouch-based approach meet the needs? “double spending” becomes a race to be the first to empty the pouch. Steve and Larry are the only actors in the scenario with the secret key, unless it gets intercepted or something. Assuming Larry isn’t a jerk about it, Steve is the only one who can empty the pouch and he can do it at his convenience, when he has internet access. I doubt you can do the scenario without Steve having to trust Larry. If the two of them are in the same place and Larry is the only one with a working device and Larry is no super-hacker who would be suspected of having a fake lookalike app, Steve can watch Larry craft the pouch before he gets his copy of the key. I realize I may have just described a way to implement “unidirectional payment channel” although not securely. And if Steve gets hit by a bus before he can empty the shared pouch, Larry can “revert” the pouch by emptying it back to his main account. Thoughts?
Nothing but net
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages