Bitcoin Forum

Hi All,

Have a look at our new white paper:
https://docs.google.com/a/etoro.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit

Feel free to comment on the shared paper or at our Google group:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/bitcoinx


For more information visit : www.coloredcoins.org

Thanks!

Thank you, Bruce. I intend to heavily use Colored Coins in one of my projects.

Thanks
We would be happy to hear more about it and maybe sponsor it in the future.

The link to this project is already on my signature. This is quite ambitious stuff and certainly Coloredcoins.org team as a formal organization is invited to be among the first 20 core members.

With the recent rise in Bitcoin price, money becomes less of a problem for every Bitcoin related project. I'll be happy to accept your sponsorship rather in terms of advice and recommendation than in money. Probably I'll suggest some modifications to order-based coloring, but let me carefully read the new white paper version first and not jump ahead.

You are more than welcome

I have to say I find the Genesis transaction mechanism quite awkward. Why not put the color definition (the URL encoded string) as a message in the transaction?

Also, the fact that you have to send coins to the COLGEN address is a no-no to me. This is an unnecessary dependency.

If you want adoption, colored coins need to be completely decentralized, as is Bitcoin. The "standard" shouldn't rely on a central address like COLGEN.

What do you mean a "message in the transaction"? Right now there is no standard way to encode data in a transaction aside from OP_RETURNs, which we specifically listed as an option. If you're thinking about those messages that blockchain.info shows, they're a proprietary overlay backed by BCI's database, not anything in the Bitcoin network.


We got a lot of similar feedback, and we decided we'll listen. We got rid of the COLGEN address part, and replaced it with an output to the 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 address (which is cryptographically unspendable by anyone and so neutral). I still like the "marker address" idea because it lets light clients easily search for geneses on BCI by going to http://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2 (http://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2), but I think doing it this way removes the centralization. We do want to make a premium color system, but we will set that up as a BitcoinX project independent of the underlying colored coins framework.

Also, I simplified the paper somewhat over the last few days, including making the tagging-based coloring algorithms simpler. The property that colorvalue = value - padding or zero is now true for all colors, for example.

I am fascinated by the project and have been following it for a little while now. But one thing I am unclear about is the extent to which implementation would require changes to the core protocol. Can you summarise for a non technical person such as myself? Would CC implementation require (in practise) the cooperation of the core developers ?
Best regards
David

In practice, yes.  But only because common clients would have to be aware of colored coins that end up in their wallet, so that they didn't arbitrarily send them out in payment for a candy bar.  As I understand it, however, the colored coins proposal would require an external database to manage the titles & ties to particular coins.