Grin Spam protection Idea. Is it possible to have single-sided-transactions that have only inputs and outputs from the sender, but the fee and the validity is verifiable by the receiver automatically? Messages with valid transactions and high enough fee can transit the spam protection, others get filtered automatically. Then the receiver of Messages can manually decide to discard the transaction, or to punish the sender by including the transaction to the grin chain if it was spam.
Very good idea! Besides, most people explain slatepacks in a similar way 
We could say the the slatepacks is the engine underneath. But itâs really a Paying Contract that needs to be signed both ways
1 Like
We can debate on the names of the steps, but this is exactly what happens behind the scenes in Grin transactions. A multisig is a contract agreed on and signed by the parties involved, itâs no different in Grin.
1 Like
sender canât create output for the receiver since the one who creates the output can also spend it (thatâs how mw works)
I know, it is not needed. Output is optional, if sender wants to keep the change. Receiver doesnât receive grin. Receiver gets a spam protected message. That message could be part of a grin transaction or anything else.
I donât understand what you mean, does your spam protection prevent step1 spams? Whatâs the role of this spam protection message (what kind of spam does it help to prevent and how)?
I think it is possible to use a complete signed, but not published transaction with a significant fee, as kind of a collateral. Its a hypothetical use-case for most fee-based blockchains, not specific to grin. The signed, but not published transaction, could be (optional) part of a message protocol. All messages without, could get automatically discarded by the message receiver. All valid messages give the receiver the option to publish the transaction to the blockchain, if there is any need to punish the sender. Yes, this method might prevent step1 spam, inbox or database storage, but not receiving bandwidth.
It should not be a problem In this case the ephemeral adres is just a slatepack address that does not use a master public key, but a derived pubic key for an account or single address.
The SlatepackAddress is a shareable bech32 encoded ed25519 public key that can be used both to *route synchronous transactions* and to *encrypt asynchronous transactions*
The longer I work with Grin, the less I think the three steps is an issue. Just more code around it might be handy, e.g. automatically picking up slatapacks from emails and messaging APPs such as signal.
One other minor problem with 2 step is that a recipient can fake not receiving it, wait for a second transaction and then accept both.But this is also possible with RSR flow.
In both cases the user should cancel the first transaction before sending again.
1 Like
Except that AFAIK, no wallet implements a proper (ie. self-spending) cancelâŚ
I think you are right 
, if it was up to me, all cancels in all wallets would be by default save. No need to even have an unsafe cancel. Keeps things simpler and safe for the user while saving many discussions that could be avoided by accepting a cancel is just a simple self spend.
Yes, but having ephemeral addresses swaps srs and rsr iirc
Yes, thatâs why i didnât implement the srs/srs testnet exchange since people would share it as a reference of how to do it and it wouldnât even be safe. We need to push that rfc forward
I think it gets swapped only if you join wan to communicate the address and the communication of the partial excess.
To be fair, itâs a bit harder to pull off the attack in SRS (though not impossible) and easier to detect blocking of a tx. Yes, we need to review it and make it happen.
Lold thatâs what we have in the end , âIâm wanna run my own walletâ so itâs not a problems itâs commercial 
Grin himself has no problems. The only problem is that people still do not understand, and do not want to learn and understand, what is and what does crypto. The world doesnât deserve crypto.
3 Likes
The unstoppable down trend in Grinâs price is a critical problem.
1 Like
since inflation rate lowers with each block it means grin is becoming better and better store of value, so my guess is that once inflation rate becomes low enough the selling should mostly stop
Sure, but currently the selling pressure is getting much higher while the inflation rate lowers.
All that glitters is not gold⌠He who is in a hurry stumbles⌠Letâs talk about MW and not pricesâŚ
You could also see this a good thing, âthere have historically been no better times than now to buy Grinâ 
Looking at the trend, tomorrow seems better
1 Like