On the Bitcoin wiki there’s a passage about “chaumean e-cash”, during which 20 unbiased entities are designated as signers:
In case you are OK with 10 or so people controlling the foreign money, then you’ll be able to design a a lot better system than Bitcoin. For instance, you’ll be able to design a system utilizing chaumean e-cash with the next properties:
20 unbiased entities are designated as signers.
So long as a majority of signers are sincere, the system stays safe.
The system has good anonymity. The signers can not know something in regards to the circulation of cash.
Transactions are on the spot, requiring solely communication with the signers and a small quantity of computation.
If you wish to protect the mining mechanism, you’ll be able to create a easy proof-of-work block chain which merely determines the present signers and creates cash. Customers of the system would take a look at the newest blocks solely to find out the general public keys and IP addresses of the present signers, after which use the system as beforehand described.
This technique could be higher than Bitcoin in a number of methods. However the level of Bitcoin is to be decentralized, so Satoshi rejected this concept (which has been well-known for over 20 years) and created Bitcoin as a substitute.
These signers jogs my memory of (my understanding of) Proof of stake validators.
The signers preserve observe of account balances and signal serialnumbers, thereby giving them worth.
The validators modifies the shared ledger by ordering transactions and creating new blocks which can be distributed to the community.
Each to me appear to be trusted events which can be given the duty of updating account balances/a shared ledger… ?
Nevertheless, chaumean e-cash is described as a centralized fee system, and Proof of stake programs are described as de-centralized.
What’s the distinction between the signers within the talked about passage and the validators in Proof of stake?