http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=d-waves-quantum-computer-courts-controversyThese new quantum computers change the game in the IT world, and certainly might effect some of the assumptions behind Bitcoin's security. The question that needs to be asked: how quickly can blocks be 'mined' with such a computer? But the pain has been real — much of it, critics would argue, brought on by Rose himself. In 2007, his company announced its first working computer with a showy public demonstration at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. By the current standards of quantum computing — which in theory offers huge advances in computing power — the device's performance was astonishing. Here was a prototype searching a database for molecules similar to a given drug and solving a sudoku puzzle, while the best machines built using standard quantum approaches could at most break down the number 21 into its factors. Butterfly Labs better take notice.
|
|
|
|
|
did you know that it originally stood for : Magic The Gathering Online eXchange?
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/rippleFoundation/ripple-client/blob/develop/LICENSEToday I did some research into the Ripple license. Seems that they don't use a standardized Open Source license for the client code. The server code remains closed source. Some professed agents of OpenCoin such as David Schwartz gave some reasons as to why they did this, however there is no known statement from company officers to this point. Thus there is no credible public claim regarding Ripple's future licensing structure. Their use of a non-standard OS license further lends credence to the theory that Ripple is not truly open source. Copyright (c) 2012,2013 OpenCoin, Inc.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. why not just use the Apache/MIT license?-bm
|
|
|
|
3) Alt coins could become very similar to BTC, and can be easily created
This is precisely why BTC has ZERO INTRINSIC VALUE. people often say that BTC is valuable because I can transfer and spend it in ways that other currencies don't offer, however nothing is preventing me from making an ALTCHAIN and providing this same exact intrinsic value for presumably any price. |
|
|
|
It's probably worth point out that 5% return ON BITCOINS is amazing. If I could buy a low-risk asset that would give me 5% return on bitcoins... I would invest all of my bitcoins. The reason I haven't done this is that almost all of the options are very high risk... so may as well try for something that has high returns.
Bitcoins are low risk now? This forum is great for lols. |
|
|
|
Imagine in 10-50 years, when there are beyond billions of transactions monthly, the amount of resources a bitcoin blockchain takes up will be so out of control that only large data centers can support it. And whoever has enough money and resources to be able to service the entire blockchain has in essence centralized a decent chunk of bitcoin, and I'm assuming that there would only be at the most 10 block chains in existent if it's that out of control. It's pretty likely bitcoin will grow faster than moore's law.
So how will this impending centralization be stopped?
Off-chain transactions. Smart Checkpointing. Higher TX fees. Peer to peer Decentralized Low or zero transaction fees Isnt that the advertised advantages of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Imagine in 10-50 years, when there are beyond billions of transactions monthly, the amount of resources a bitcoin blockchain takes up will be so out of control that only large data centers can support it. And whoever has enough money and resources to be able to service the entire blockchain has in essence centralized a decent chunk of bitcoin, and I'm assuming that there would only be at the most 10 block chains in existent if it's that out of control. It's pretty likely bitcoin will grow faster than moore's law.
So how will this impending centralization be stopped?
and technologies like color coins will multiply the number of transactions exponentially. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it's just me, or is everyone on this forum a crackpot, lunatic, or complete fraud?
|
|
|
|
and which VC would that be? Nice try, you'll find out when everyone else does when we make the joint announcement. I see, so we have to play along until the point at which you announce the secret VC that will grant someone money to develop an open source P2P bitcoin exchange. would the VC just announce themselves that they are looking for proposals? I mean that's what normal sane people do when they want to fund something. |
|
|
|
Sorry Charles, are you working with a VC fund? If so I wasn't aware. yes and now you are. and which VC would that be? |
|
|
|
#1) too many chefs in the kitchen.
I agree with some of the comments on here, we don't need any more 'leaders' to 'get developers'. If you are one of these volunteer 'project managers', as it stands you are in very low demand, and the developers who can actually deliver on a system that people want are in high demand. Some of these 'whitepapers' are just pointless regurgitation of fairly basic assumptions about these problems. Please stop making distractions. Creating a Github project does not put you in charge of things. Blue, this is an aggregation of ideas and implementations surrounding a list of design criterion and challenges. I'm the one here with the money and also access to the developers so I'm really not worried about the leadership component. I want to see what the range of solutions are to the issues of a p2p exchange both legal and technological. Sorry Charles, are you working with a VC fund? If so I wasn't aware. |
|
|
|
hey thanks for the positive comment. It seems you've given thought to these issues, that much is clear. Server Architecture
Open Transactions does indeed suffer from most of the problems you just outlined. As designed by FellowTraveler, it can only be run by a public entity and all issuers are public creators of illegal bearer bonds... a non-starter.
The primary benefit of destructive account history is 'instant validation' and 'server resources' and also prevents opportunity for the server to scam the customer. You could of course always keep the transaction history for legal purposes. But then again, bank records have screwed many innocent men and represent a means of tracking people that should be avoided if possible.
"server resources"? we're actually advertising destructable records as saving disk space? that's just funny to me. Some of you other comments don't make sense. If the bank(admin of an OT server) wanted to screw the customer, they most certainly could, in many ways. Historically, this is what happened to such systems. It's not altogether clear to me how these 'voting pool' devices are going to protect against that. Seems to me just another complex way of putting up a trustee bond against accounts. It doesnt offer any significant technological advantages. The challenge to make OT work is to eliminate the issuers and prevent the server operator from being able to take the money. You can use BitShares to actually store the funds and 'audit' the server while allowing the high-speed trading / instant transactions to occur on the server. In this case, destruction of account history is critical because it keeps the amount of information the server/user must produce to the blockchain to 'withdraw' money to a minimum. It is almost a technical requirement that account history be destroyed.
again seems like what you're doing is just creating collateralized debt, and then marketing it. I notice you have the term 'interest' in your writings, and the only thing you could do with this basic notion of credit is to create mechanisms that pay off in the case of depreciation or appreciation. You have not tied them to some outside asset. Last time I visited this topic, seems like what you were doing was setting the interest rate on some kind of outside information service, and this Debt Collateral was used interchangeably with that asset. The only problem is that no one can predict the outcome of markets. These things are interesting kinds of devices and it's true that they are marketable, in the same way T-bills are marketable and valuable. put it this way- there is a reason why they want to illegalize asset conversion. Because THEY KNOW that this is the key ingredient in building monetary value. You simply must have this at some level in order to build an alternative value schema- isn't that what we're doing here? It's a given that 'the government' doesnt want people to do that. I also think that the expectation of very high trading speeds and very low latency taking a very narrow view based upon the last 20 years or so of exchanges. For the past several hundred years all exchanges and trades had to occur at 'human speed'. Even today, most people don't 'day-trade' and instead decided to buy on day X and sell months or weeks later. The intra-day price movement is not all that relevant to their buy-sell decision nor the long-term direction of the market. High speed trading has its place, but is not a requirement for a fully functional exchange.
this is true you can have a functional exchange that operates at those speeds, but if you actually bother to implement it- I should hope you consider that others might be able to outdo you in terms of speed(thus making the whole effort worthless). People expect fairly quick turnaround times these days. Confidence Chains certainly can give you that. |
|
|
|
|
It's interesting, I think generally you're on the right track.
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to make a few points here...
#1) too many chefs in the kitchen.
I agree with some of the comments on here, we don't need any more 'leaders' to 'get developers'. If you are one of these volunteer 'project managers', as it stands you are in very low demand, and the developers who can actually deliver on a system that people want are in high demand. Some of these 'whitepapers' are just pointless regurgitation of fairly basic assumptions about these problems. Please stop making distractions. Creating a Github project does not put you in charge of things.
#2) the nature of IOUs.
There is no way to factor this notion of IOUs and collateral from the equation. Would BTC have any value if I couldn't exchange it out for USD or EUR? of course not. Yes there is a inherent legal liability associated with converting these digital assets to REAL WORLD assets. This sort of activity is mentioned directly in FinCEN guidelines. The point here is that we want to develop a system that distributes the legal liability such that enforcement becomes impractical. eg. it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material, but people do it because BitTorrent makes it very easy.
In all cases these distributed exchanges instead move the liability and gains(through seigniorage) to individuals rather than organizations. No fancy use of crypto assets will eliminate this basic relationship. An exchange needs only two things:
1) a system whereby assets can be issued.
2) a system whereby assets can be exchanged.
With these two basic functions, the other familiar devices can be developed.
#3) server architecture
As many of you know I have a history with the Open Transactions project, and it had been suggested that it could be used to run a marketplace. 1) destructable history- no where has this particular feature ever demonstrated or indicated any utility. For instance if I were running some illicit business and authorities came to shut me down, and I paper shredded all my records, does this absolve me of responsibility? 2) anonymous servers: we saw this scenario recently with TorBroker, they were a client/server architecture hosted behind Tor. Would you give these people your money? Open Transactions offers nothing beyond that- even if they produce some kind of crypto document that tells you what your balance is. We've had many such e-currencies before and they all failed in user adoption. ASMOF, there is precisely nothing new in the Open Transactions architecture, thus I can't think of why we would expect a new result.
#4) marketcoin
I did read some of the comments regarding Marketcoin, and it looked interesting. My first preliminary question is: how will it be mined? Show me some Use Cases. I think it is very possible to host an order book in a block chain. I had originally thought to make an 'altcoin' that did just that, however I found this route to be unworkable.
#5) messaging
Messaging is indeed a key problem with markets, in particular latency which caused me to rule out the possibility of using a mined chain to host an order book. Also it is probably impossible to rely on a p2p messaging architecture eg. WASTE, as you rely on potentially uninvested peers for message relay. Signals must be relayed by impartial parties, and they must relay them faithfully and quickly. Any system that has the possibility of bias in the messaging can disqualify the system from many important applications.
-bm
|
|
|
|
In the end issuing fiat IOUs is a regulated activity in most countries probably (as this is quite close to operating a bank) and has VERY high fines and risks involved if you try to do this illegally. There are by the way less than 250 countries recognized by the UN...
Bitcoin is not (yet?) illegal; issuing fiat IOUs, no matter if backed by BTC or not, most definitely is - and it has been already for at least decades.
Can you give us some information to back this up? I'm aware there are some risks. Isnt this what Ripple is based on? What about store coupons? Can I be arrested for using them? |
|
|
|
Not sure if this is a good or bad change. As that post says it will stop someone from posting 1000+ times with pure spam just to "climb the ranks"
yep I got this too.  except I'm not posting spam. |
|
|
|
cool show! I think you're a bit confused though. Do you really think that the NSA produces our encryption technology for the benefit of the public? or to make sure that the public only uses technology that they approve? Given you monopolize talent in the cryptology field, you could make crippled crypto that the NSA reserves knowledge of backdoors to. This scenario has been suggested over and over again, and the history of regulations reflect it. Their crypto techniques are often found to have flaws. Just look at what happened when someone tried to make their own encryption standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Early_history-bm |
|
|
|
Transactions per block growing too quickly for current 1MB size limit (increased size will hurt smaller pools but most people don't give a shit). In addition to block size increases, there are a couple improvements coming down the line to help with transaction volume: 1) Micropayment channels will allow sites like Satoshi Dice to compress each customer into a single transaction per block. 2) Off-chain transactions will be much more secure when they start using multi-signature transaction to hold funds. Hopefully (fingers crossed!) these will be in easy-to-use clients before Bitcoin gets much more popular. how exactly does that work? what is a 'multi-signature' off-chain transaction? |
|
|
|
|
the solution is they should write out some kind of explanation of their stance in some format that is more durable and presentable.
I've used online forums a lot and I also sympathize with the other side of things. Especially recently with the runup in BTC price, I imagine the veterans are suddenly having to contend with a flood of ignoramuses with 'brilliant ideas'. For instance Reddit is a great way to determine popularity, perhaps the worst way to determine validity.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
