https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BcFv1UYPK3AOLrcL0ujiIzhr-c7fcs8mY9pASIlI8hM/edit?usp=sharingABSTRACT Bond auctions are an elementary component of most modern capitalistic economies. In this paper we will describe a peer-to-peer bond auction system meaning that the system 1) has no central point of failure 2) auction events are determined by a unique combination of chronology and democratic consensus that is typical to Confidence Chains based applications[1]. The system is modeled on the common Dutch Auction format[3]. Support for two bond types are described: Zero Coupon and Fixed Rate Bonds. A fully usable system would require feature basis described in [2]. This basic system provides the necessary basis to construct other useful and attractive features such as interest bearing savings accounts, personal lines of credit, community fundraising (eg. Kickstarter), and other advanced applications.
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
In this paper we describe a system for the exchange of assets(currencies) that is decentralized, meaning that 1) it has no central point of failure 2) critical decisions are determined by democratic consensus. This basic mechanism can also be adapted to use as an asset transport system akin to Western Union. It offers us some unique advantages. 1) the exchange can span legal jurisdictions, creating an extra-national digital assets marketplace 2) no central point of control thus enhancing the credibility of the exchange. Most importantly, it is possible to construct account ledgers that can endure any legal offensives save international accords. This system builds on the Confidence Chains Algorithm described in an earlier paper[1]. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKlN55wX7n0SLvxidLoFVrJnNMJO-Iefr8bVyeHBseg/edit?usp=sharing |
|
|
|
|
can we rename this thread to : BTC Bull Loser Thread?
|
|
|
|
With the limitation of 7 transactions/second, 10 minute confirmation times, hour long deposits, and sometimes, transactions that take days, there is a big incentive to create ways to transact off the chain. With inputs.io and soon Open Transactions, it seems there has already been some movement in this direction.
It has been claimed that the block size limit will be increased sometime in the future. But there is already movement to get around the block chain altogether. If a new method of securing transactions can be instant, then the block chain becomes less attractive.
So if enough transactions go off chain, will there still be enough incentive to mine and secure the block chain? or will it lead to fewer transaction fees, fewer miners, less security......
And if the answer is no, that wouldn't happen, I'd be interested in hearing some thought on why, and what would happen if the answer were yes.
ultimately the transactions must be settled in the block chain. if some technology is claiming to take transactions completely off the chain, then you must consider the weaknesses inherent in the technology in question. |
|
|
|
Hi All, This is very very conservative giveaway but still giveaway for people who don't have ripples to start with you will earn one XRP for every new posting on http://www.opencoin.in and every week whoever posts max will be given 100XRP minimum See you all on opencoin.in "very very conservative giveaway" dont worry we still buy the idea that they're worth something.  |
|
|
|
I've been doing Block Chain processing as well in Java. http://i.imagebanana.com/img/g11ev2ol/Selection_018email.pngthis diagram shows the famous Hal Finney transaction (block #170), which spends an output from block #9. This output is later spent in block #181, then #182, and then spent in both #183 and #221. I'm getting my data from the Bitcoind REST APIs though, it's a bit slower, but once the primary ETL is done then you don't have to worry much about it. the data set though is far too large for the typical end user of Bitcoin though. ............. another cool one. looks like a miner collected a bunch of coins into one account and then spent it to another. http://i.imagebanana.com/img/9e42925q/Selection_019.png |
|
|
|
I know that probably has been mentioned before but I just checked the size of the Bitcoin folder in appdata and it is now 17GB. Right now I have it stored on another drive and then mapped across, due to my OS drive being a small SSD.
Is there going to be any way for the dev's to be able to decrease this at all?
Imagine 10 years down the line and a 100 GB or higher Bitcoin appdata folder, that is always a lot of space even on a TB HD.
it's totally unmanageable. It's simply not going to be practical in the near term. this will solve some of the issues, but the basic problems remain. |
|
|
|
Seems that ASICS is have a detrimental impact on BTC.
(1) A huge amount of hashing power is now in the hands of companies that can stamp out one set of chips after another. Few seem to make it to retail (i.e. BFL)
(2) Most of the former GPU miners, once a large support base for the coin, have lost interest due to the BFL fiasco and the fact Avalon shipped only a tiny number of retail devices
(3) Concentration of network power in the hands of a few is a disaster. Precisely the opposite of what BTC was supposed to be all about
(4) Raw gh/s figures are irrelevant given that only a tiny number of firms have ASICS designs. THESE COMPANIES NOW EFFECTIVELY CONTROL THE NETWORK
LTC is looking very strong right now. Holding its USD value as BTC falls.
The two may meet in the middle
Proof Of Work is not an effective way to achieve consensus in a p2p network. http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdfthe only thing it achieved is an industry for SHA-256 hashing. |
|
|
|
I think things are going to move to an architecture where there a limited set of nodes in the network manage the currency, and most account owners are light clients of some kind.
If you want this then the Bitcoin block-chain and protocol is the wrong design to achieve it. Services like visa paypal are far better designed for serving many transactions from small clusters. More secure too— once you must trust a limited set of nodes to not cheat then protocols which cannot be compromised unless they do offer a better security model. A fairly pointless comment. Visa doesn't have any nodes. You can participate in the authorization process in a Visa transaction? |
|
|
|
The main point of DHT implementation is to let run client with full chain even on cheap computers.
As long as you put major load on single node, the hardware requirements for that node grow along with chain. This may bring a situation when only jet set can run full chain. All others will have to blindly beleive to their chain.
This is centralization IMO.
that's inevitable. The block chain is currently > 8 GB. I think things are going to move to an architecture where there a limited set of nodes in the network manage the currency, and most account owners are light clients of some kind. It's simply not practical to have everyone have a block chain. These distributed currencies are just getting started and Bitcoin is already unmanageable. My vision is 1) no more proof of work 2) distributed rather than decentralized currencies. This offers a lot of advantages. |
|
|
|
If a person buys or sells bitcoins for dollars, they are supposed to register as a Money Transmitter. This is being applied to the average person even Foundations that do not angage in this, based on the associations of their members.
So, I propose nobody ever buys or sells bitcoins for dollars anymore. I propose we give them away for FREE whenever someone buys or sells a piece of blank paper, valued at approx the same price as bitcoins.
If someone is willing to buy my "pet rock" for $105.00, I'll include a FREE Bitcoin!
what if we buy and sell Magic Cards? is that currency? |
|
|
|
"... the dollar-based world currency system is close to the end of its tether. America’s manufacturing base is too hollowed out and its current account deficits too high for the dollar to stage a turnaround and, without major remedial measures, will face total collapse. So what comes next? Some people have been pushing the bitcoin. This can be summarily dismissed. As Paul Krugman has pointed, demand for the bitcoin comes almost entirely from speculators rather than commercial users, which does not bode well for the stability of any bitcoin based system. There is also the fact that no serious government has any interest in curtailing its currency-issuing monopoly to accommodate this techie’s pipedream." http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/06/30/dethroning-the-dollar-the-yuan-the-bitcoin-and-other-usurpers/he's quoting Krugman? that more or less disqualifies this entire article. |
|
|
|
I tried to sign up for several payment companies so I could fund my BTC-e account, and each one said that US Citizens accounts will be deleted.
Why are international companies doing this?
Is the US Government trying to disrupt the movement of money?
Generally the US has higher standards and hassles companies that dont meet their requirements. Its more of a risk to take on American accounts in this case, but America is also a very rich nation so these orgs must weight the tradeoffs. |
|
|
|
|
I notice also these projects seem to have an abundance of input from Graphic Designers, Video Script Producers, Cheerleaders, etc.
It's kind of unfortunate really what has happened to Open Source. It used to be about engineering, now it's about making these 'projects' to attract investors and the like. It's nothing about what it was originally.
|
|
|
|
Email with PGP is already ridiculously easy to use, works with existing infrastructure and has been PROVEN to be secure.
-bm
This is an argument against Bitmessage in general. You should talk to Atheros about that. Also, email with PGP isn't truly anonymous nor is it decentralized. Your mail server could be seized or go down at any time. part of the value proposition with BitMessage was it was supposed to be easy to use. seems the only remaining value proposition is "I Haz A Blockchain". bitmessage is as easy to use if it's easy to use, why the startup? First of all, before criticizing Bitmessage please understand how it works. You can read the whitepaper here. Bitmessage doesn't use a blockchain or anything very similar. Secondly, Bitmessage is still tied to the desktop client. This app is a portable web client. you guys are seriously hilarious. so you're going to take away Bitmessage's decentralization to make it 'easier' to use. Why dont I use Cryptocat, GPG Tools, or any number of other secure messaging protocols out there? Did you even stop for moment to think how this product compares at the end user level? this is too funny. |
|
|
|
Email with PGP is already ridiculously easy to use, works with existing infrastructure and has been PROVEN to be secure.
-bm
This is an argument against Bitmessage in general. You should talk to Atheros about that. Also, email with PGP isn't truly anonymous nor is it decentralized. Your mail server could be seized or go down at any time. part of the value proposition with BitMessage was it was supposed to be easy to use. seems the only remaining value proposition is "I Haz A Blockchain". bitmessage is as easy to use if it's easy to use, why the startup? uber-critic? unfortunately the environment around bitcoin appears to be one where no one ever questions anyone's claims, and thus erroneous ideas seem to float around unchecked. If that's the kind of thing you want, then go right ahead. I guess with experience, you learn to have a zero-tolerance policy for BS. If you want to contribute and support a project simply because it's 'cool', then go right ahead. Talk to me again when you're all grown up and ready to do something real with your life. PGP works perfectly fine and is KNOWN to be secure. Why don't people contribute to one of the may PGP/email projects out there? or encrypted IM? There has been loads of work on how to do secure messaging, why Bitmessage? Does it even suggest where it fits in this realm? How it compares to other similar technologies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_messagingYou're calling me ubercritical, but I have to say it's a bit arrogant to ignore and entire FIELD of study. Where is the work on why this is an improvement over other secure messaging protocols? There have been hundreds of publications in this area. time to grow up guys. |
|
|
|
Email with PGP is already ridiculously easy to use, works with existing infrastructure and has been PROVEN to be secure.
-bm
This is an argument against Bitmessage in general. You should talk to Atheros about that. Also, email with PGP isn't truly anonymous nor is it decentralized. Your mail server could be seized or go down at any time. part of the value proposition with BitMessage was it was supposed to be easy to use. seems the only remaining value proposition is "I Haz A Blockchain". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
