Time to buy some MSC:  ok where exactly is it explained as to how you will construct this Distributed Exchange? it seems the winners of this Distributed Exchange contest are making anything but a Distributed Exchange. (appears to be wallets and other tools analogous to past Color Coin efforts). if you have a Distributed Exchange, I would be very interested to see what you have done.Please provide some information. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
I took a look at some of the repos, there isn't much there. One of them is some VB files that could be generated automatically. Seems like a lot of HTML and padding to make it look like coding is going on.
No where do I see any evidence or specification for why this thing is supposed to be so cutting edge. Instead I see constant reference to 'Asset Indexes', but no where is it clear how that's done. Seems to be conforming to the general color coins protocol? We have discussed at length as to why embedding these sorts of microtransactions are problematic and I see NO reference to those issues anywhere. Did you solve them? Where?
Im not really sure why this is so exciting? Seems that whatever this project is it wants to talk about 'decentralized exchanges' and 'asset indexes' which have been discussed for some time on these lists. There are a number of projects with this angle, mine is one of them.
Any time I try and make some sense of the various writings strewn around the web about Mastercoin, I'm directed to purchase Mastercoins. Sounds a lot like Ripple to me. Why exactly do I need to purchase these Mastercoins?
There seems to be a lot of interest in things like 'smart property' and distributed exchanges. I have yet to see the proposal for your distributed exchange, however I have shown exactly how to do it with Confidence Chains. Also there was supposedly a $50,000 bounty for a 'distributed exchange'? someone developed a working idea, submitted it, approved, all in a matter of a week or so? Why does Mastercoin advertise a Decentralized Exchange, yet it posted a bounty for a solution to this problem? Everything about this project sounds dubious.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I want to purchase Mastercoins?
|
|
|
|
new OS on a new box here, been...oh I don't know...year and a half since I have to set bitcoin QT up from scratch
sweet baby zombie jesus, hours and hours, I got hours to go, still 15 weeks back and the weeks are obviously getting bigger all the time
obviously this has to be a tired topic so forgive me, what are the strategies that have been proposed to deal with this? Couple years ago it was inconvenient, now it is ridiculous, couple years from now it will be untenable.
mass adoption indeed, lol
now imagine that the number of transactions are multiplied by number of CoinColors or Mastercoins, etc? it's just simply impossible to host these extra transactions on top of normative bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
So Im in the process of researching the Mastercoin project.
Seems there is only one person mentioned on the entire Mastercoin.org website and that is J.R. Willet(the presumed author of the Mastercoin paper).
Mastercoin.org is registered to Ron Gross at an Israeli address.
Registrant Name:Ron Gross
Registrant Street1:16 Shoshanim
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Kiryat BIalik
Registrant State/Province:Israel
Registrant Postal Code:27071
Registrant Country:IL
Registrant Phone:+972.526558841
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.5555555555
Thus we have to assume they have no known corporate status. I'd like to verify some of the claims regarding the investment money they are reported to have received? Does anyone know how to do this- I imagine it can be confirmed from the Block Chain and some kind of Mastercoin specific data?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any reason why a new round of Mastercoins cannot be issued?
if so, then Mastercoins shouldn't have much value.
We traversed these discussions with Ripple. The claims were: If Ripple is Open Source, why can't I just issue a new set of Ripples? At that point we discovered that Ripple wasn't actually open source.
|
|
|
|
There were many discussions on the BitcoinX mailing list regarding the issue of Microtransactions and COIN_DUST and their impact on the viability of Color Coins. Seems that Mastercoin also has these problems. From one of their publications: All transactions and operations involving MasterCoins are encoded into the block chain using tiny bitcoin transactions. So generally, Mastercoin has the same issues as Color Coins, that being increasing total number of Bitcoin transactions exponentially. Will these tiny bitcoin transactions exceed the COIN_DUST limit? There is an entire constellation of issues surrounding the use of the Block Chain for alternative purposes 1) transaction latency 2) block chain bloat 3) mining economics. Most of what is indicated in this so called '2nd Bitcoin Whitepaper' is an investment scheme, not a technical specification(which greatly adds to it's general distaste). The entire thing from top to bottom appears to be made completely of hype. They seem to be piling on the feature claims at an incredible rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump It also seems to greatly resemble the Ripple model, where there is some kind of commodity currency that is required to run the system(Mastercoins). Ripple used this as a fundraising scheme and also used it as social device, it has a way of rapidly recruiting advocates(anyone holding a Mastercoin). -bm
|
|
|
|
Why would you want to: 1) implement a complex technology to retrofit to existing Bitcoin 2) that may have catastrophic capacity issues and introduce a whole new tier of policing problems to Bitcoin 3) that requires a THIRD or even a FOURTH technology(some of which themselves are unproven or even unspecified) in order to achieve auxiliary functions Just to do what Confidence Chains does simply, elegantly, efficiently and natively? the implementation technique has changed quite a few times. What we have now in NGCCC is exactly the same thing which I implemented ago (ArmoryX), it is 100% compatible. We just got better terminology, better understanding how to handle various corner cases, future improvements, better wallet design etc. The main concern with Color Coins is performance. ... Color Coins main feature is backward compatibility with existing Bitcoin infrastructure. ... Alex has backpeddled a number of times on his statements Well, the thing is, I'm simply implementing an open source tool for asset tracking on top of Bitcoin blockchain. I think it's obvious that there are inherent limitations. Say, if BItcoin block size is limited to 1 MB, Bitcoin cannot process more than 7 transactions per second on average. And as each colored coin transaction is a Bitcoin transaction, we cannot have more than 7 colored coin transactions per second either. So, obviously, it cannot replace NYSE :-), but it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. For example, existing Bitcoin companies simply do not have trade volumes which would get anywhere close to the limits imposed by the blockchain, so it's quite possible to represent their shares with colored coins and do this decentralized trading thing. For example, one of the more popular stocks -- AM100 shares on HavelockInvestments -- had just 20 trades in last 6 hours. So that what I'm doing now: a tool which can be useful in some contexts.
Of course, sometimes people ask: what if we need to handle more than 7 transactions per second? Is it possible to do that? Well, it is possible to do transactions off-chain (i.e. without publishing real Bitcoin transactions), but that requires some trade-offs in decentralization and security. For example, it is possible to combine colored coins with Open Transactions servers: colored coins will be used to move assets between different servers and long-term wallets, while the bulk of trading will be done within servers. Sure, it isn't as bulletproof as native colored coins trade, but Open Transactions will be a massive improvement compared to 100% proprietary and opaque platforms like BitFunder, MtGox etc. In any case, it is important to understand that I'm not trying to sell a complete solution, I'm just developing open source software. It's up to people to decide how to use this software (and whether to use it). |
|
|
|
Can you elaborate on why you think Bitcoin is broken?
Right now the block reward is really massive so there is no strong incentive to jack up fees (even if you could). There should be some point where the block reward gets so low that conspiring to raise fees looks attractive. and the fees MUST remain competitive to alternative payment networks. If it's not cheaper than eg. Paypal then Bitcoin is useless, less adoption, even more problems for Bitcoin valuation. Seems like all the problems will hit at once. Yes, it's not so useful for society in the long-run, but it could still survive. Consider this scenario 1) bitcoin offers low fees for a long time 2) the user base grows tremdenously due to these low fees 3) competing systems like paypal are driven out of business 4) coinbase finances a 51% attack raising fees for on the chain txns to monopoly levels 5) coinbase raises user fees for off the chain txns, but they remain competitive with paypal like operations Coinbase could be very profitable. Since coinbase is doing price discrimimation, this is actually a more efficient strategy for extracting monopoly rents than the system used by paypal. What you would end up with is a beefed up monopoly. It doesn't necessarily mean the death of bitcoin. while I think some of these sub-scenarios are possible, I dont think Bitcoin will run Paypal out of business due to the legal/regulatory dimension. I think that not enough people are talking about what the effects of a rise in TX FEES will be. It's not just a simple function, once it exceeds a certain limit(the cost of using more traditional payment networks) then there will be catastrophic results. something like this: 1) TX fees make Bitcoin more expensive than Paypal 2) People stop using Bitcoin 3) Demand for BTC greatly decreases 4) Price of BTC greatly decreases 5) Miners no longer participate 6) Less processing power, more expensive transactions GOTO step 2 just a rough scenario... |
|
|
|
In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
The project is not very technically rigorous. I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet. |
|
|
|
I see. I was under the impression that the coloring algorithm in Meni Rosenfeld's paper "Overview of Colored Coins" was the one that's employed. Thanks. the implementation technique has changed quite a few times. The main concern with Color Coins is performance. Think NumberTransactions ^ NumberCoinColors. There haven't been any good studies on how this will pan out but that's the general estimate. Seems there is a love/hate relationship between core Bitcoin devs and Color Coins, some seem to support it, others don't. There was the COIN_DUST issue which factors into Color Coin's future. Putting Color Coins on alt-chain is just pointless because if you have a new chain, you can redesign the tx format completely. Color Coins main feature is backward compatibility with existing Bitcoin infrastructure. Alex has backpeddled a number of times on his statements and I don't spend much time reviewing his claims. Keep in mind, money has been spent on this project so the investors do have an agenda here. |
|
|
|
oh and btw- Im absolutely in favor of teaming up with other people. For now Im concentrated on the reference implementation for Confidence Chains. This basic tool gives you a lot, namely decentralized ledger that can be used for MANY interesting things. My hopes are that others pick up on this and implement powerful ideas, and you can do a lot of cool things with Confidence Chains. Color Coins seems to be my nearest neighbor, and I try to be as respectful as possible. We do appear to be competing on how to solve this Asset Issuance problem. The main difference is that I don't use the main block chain. You get a lot of advantages when you do this. Color Coins works theoretically, but I think it's final expression will be a code management and performance nightmare. Check the BitcoinX list for details on my argument. how to issue bonds and credit using Confidence Chains: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BcFv1UYPK3AOLrcL0ujiIzhr-c7fcs8mY9pASIlI8hM/edit?usp=sharingone interesting thing about my project is that I have the chance to refactor and reengineer some of the known problems with Bitcoin. It doesnt use 'mining' at all, instead it has a distributed architecture(zero trust vs. many trust). You can do incredibly powerful things with this basic technology. It could effectively replace most small and medium sized financial exchanges. |
|
|
|
Nice - wonder if there is some integration we can do. This is also open source and a trading platform to provide automated systems, graphing, etc. There is Buttercoin, and that appears to be a fairly extensive HFT platform, but it's not decentralized. Confidence Chains give you a lot of things that are very appealing to the bitcoin world. It's very simple, easy to modify and customize, and anyone can get together with their friends and run an exchange, issue assets, bonds, and much more(explained in upcoming papers). You can just search on 'Confidence Chains' here and you can see the other stuff I posted. It's very close to Color Coins and I contribute to those discussions on here and elsewhere. The underlying problems of coordinating trades over a WAN is not simple by any means and should not be underestimated. I will announce on here what the timeframes look like. Eventually anyone will be able to run their own decentralized exchange. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was interesting because it had ZERO TRUST, not only at the technology level, but the financial level as well. Nothing was BACKING it.
That's not lost on me... However I think there is still enough going for the system even if we use it to represent backed assets. Of course, there may be better ways to achieve the goal. I think many in this neck of the woods can't see the forest for the trees. They're stuck in Bitcoin methodologies when clearly we've departed from the problems Bitcoin attempted to solve(that of 'zero trust'). The solution to these problems is very simple, does not require expensive mining, and can provide a basis for a lot of powerful features. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing |
|
|
|
|
Colorcoins itself cannot enable decentralized exchanges. Protocols built ON TOP of Color Coins would enable this.
There's a lot of disinformation out there regarding these projects unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
What's up with all the Mastercoin spam in this subforum? Can you guys try to be a bit more respectful of the other projects and not start a new thread for every single subtopic? I just counted 19 so far. I understand you're trying to grow your "mindshare", but it's becoming annoying to even visit here.
Im getting tired of it as well. Some credible people are outwardly denouncing this project. They're ruining the neighborhood. a few weeks back they(who?) announced a $50,000 development 'bounty' ... never heard it get resolved though. It's destructive because they are taking attention away from the real work in this space. |
|
|
|
acid?  |
|
|
|
Satoshi Nakamoto is John Galt. But instead of stopping the motor of the world, he invented a better one and gave it to the world.
Just like John Galt, Satoshi decided to disappear. Now everyone is asking "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto" just like they asked "Who is John Galt".
the name is an anagram for "Satanism Oak Hoot", you know- the owls on the 1 dollar bill?   |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
