@FireF
You got a point there.
To summarize for me:
With cosign 1..n we have a multisig fee of 6n, plus the risk of more than 1 out of n cosigners dropping out. Not to forget the long duration of cosigning the last transaction n times.
With cosign 1..t, with t being a number of trusted members, the risk would be t-1 of those defrauding all others of the security deposit.
With t>=3 I would definitely prefer your variant. For a "final" version possibly t=4 since t-1=3 people are much more trustworthy than t-1=2.
I have already added your multisig account to my wallet. So I would like to participate.
Guess t=4 would be a good solution.
Or we do t=5. With 3 out of a trusted group and 2 Start/End accounts. So the ones who start the loops will be sure to get money back at the end. And even trusted group is not able to get money out. Still risk is that trusted group member will drop out.
t=5 because if one trusted groupmember would be like abuse he have to simply get 2 Start/End accounts into the loop and he could throw out the other trusted member. (Call me paranoid :-) Anyway afterwards we reduce the probability of risk to a degree that it could be consider OK and if you don't like to accept the little risk which stays, you shouldn't spread at all.
That said a fix trusted group of 4 members would be more practical and less expensive. Cause you don't need to do a new multisig account for every Start.
