If I'm understanding well, what he proposes is for the chain to maintain a ledger with pairs (address, total balance) and transactions just saying "substract X from account Y and add them to Z" instead of "spend everything in Y, X in Z and the rest back to Y". Very similar to Ripple's ledger.
This would be a huge refactor and a hardfork, but I haven't actually heard any argument or explanation why the system isn't like that from the beginning.
I'd be interested to know that as well. Traditionally, currency systems were designed the way OP suggests. Not sure what was the rationale for designing the transactions this way. It's certainly irregular, but perhaps there was some kind of articulated reason somewhere. It's certainly possible to have a TX format as OP suggests. Not sure how you could implement complex transaction types ie. Contracts though. It is true that it would far more efficient as far as computing balances go. |
|
|
|
Is bitbills still in business? Another similar one is coming soon at coinverters.com
they appear to be in business. did you follow the link? |
|
|
|
the famous Tulipomania incident: Tulips were first grown in Western Europe in the middle of the sixteenth century. They were cultivated by Counsellor Herwart of Augsburg, a man famous for his collection of rare exotic plants. The bulbs were sent to Herwart by a friend from Constantinople, where the tulip had already been popular for a long time. (The word "tulip" is believed to originate from a Turkish word for turban.) In 1559 tulips were seen in Herwart's garden by Conrad Gesner who, in the following ten years, claims to have popularised them in Europe.
Tulips became sought after by the wealthy, especially in Holland and Germany - wealthy people in Amsterdam sent directly to Constantinople for bulbs, paying high prices for them. Bulbs arrived in England from Vienna in 1600.
The tulip's reputation grew to such heights that, by 1634, wealthy people who did not have a tulip collection were judged to have bad taste. Many learned men, including Pompeius de Angelis and the celebrated Lipsius of Leyden, the author of the treatise "De Constantia," were passionately fond of tulips.
An overwhelming desire to own tulips gripped the middle classes. Merchants and shopkeepers, even those with modest incomes, began to vie with each other for tulips - and in the preposterous prices they paid for them. A trader from Harlaem paid half of his life savings for a single bulb. He didn't buy for profit; he just wanted his friends to admire it. http://www.thetulipomania.com/ |
|
|
|
you sir are an idiot.
Doubling the amount of coins would halve their value and still give miners the same value when they mine, solving exactly squad!
It's so frustrating to see how people don't get the basic principle behind bitcoin, difficulty and transaction fees! Even after 46 posts on this forum.
It's a SELF REGULATING system. You don't have to solve any problems because there are NONE.
Miners will always get tax fee that is profitable for them. If they don't, they will stop mining and difficulty will decrease making it more profitable for the rest to mine -> incentivising mining.
At the same time people will up their transaction fee because if they don't their transactions will not be confirmed. -> making mining profitable.
You just can't knock the bit coin system of it's feet. If it gets a bump it will straighten itself out and find a new point of stability.
Educate yourself and stop coming up with problems that don't exist.
problem is though we have many digital currency systems that require transaction fees. Try this: replace the term 'mining' with a better descriptor 'transaction processing' and some of the magic seems to wear off a bit doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Well, in my personal opinion. I believe it was the manufacturers of the ASIC were simply cashing out.
they could be pumping it up as well. It's fairly simple really, if ASIC Rigs were such a great asset, wouldnt the companies just be mining rather then vending hardware? |
|
|
|
The number of BTC is being INFLATED right now. The supply currently increases by roughly 7200 BTC per day (value at the time of writing: $734,400).
The layman sees Bitcoin as 'money from nowhere', but really every time a miner solves a block he/she is reducing the total worth of all BTC in existence. Thus is APPEARS as though there are no transaction fees, when in reality the fees come from anyone who holds bitcoin.
Very soon it will be possible to take short positions on BTC, making it possible to easily profit from BTC depreciation. Thus people could easily take positions on technological disruptions, etc.
This rules come from the beginning, and it's completely clear. But if you can change it now, because people wants... that is going to happen again, and again... and we're back in the same problem fiat has. the point is that Bitcoin is said to be a 'free open money system', really it is not quite meeting these qualifications. So if I send 20.00 of bitcoin from point X to point Y, it appears as though it is free- however the fee is embedded in this inflation function. Eventually the price of BTC does not hold. Consider this: Mining could be thought of as an investment vehicle. A 'rig' costs X dollars and generates 'Y' dollars. As we generate an industry of mining hardware, and these investments become more tractable, then that means that it becomes available to larger capital pools. The moment this happens then you also have mining monopolization which carries a host of system problems as well. If an ASIC miner were indeed a great investment, why don't the ASIC manufacturers just start mining instead of selling the rigs themselves? "the people who made the greatest gains in the Californian gold rush were the ones who sold the shovels." |
|
|
|
|
What's happening right now is the phenomenon has exploded to such an extent people are willing to listen to anyone. It's dangerous to be involved really, people are going to lose big bucks on these scams and naturally anyone who is hanging around is going to be lumped in with these complete frauds.
|
|
|
|
|
The number of BTC is being INFLATED right now. The supply currently increases by roughly 7200 BTC per day (value at the time of writing: $734,400).
The layman sees Bitcoin as 'money from nowhere', but really every time a miner solves a block he/she is reducing the total worth of all BTC in existence. Thus is APPEARS as though there are no transaction fees, when in reality the fees come from anyone who holds bitcoin.
Very soon it will be possible to take short positions on BTC, making it possible to easily profit from BTC depreciation. Thus people could easily take positions on technological disruptions, etc.
|
|
|
|
In light of the various companies popping up recently- some of then obviously fraudulent scams... let's get a bit of perspective, shall we? http://cryptome.org/jya/digicrash.htmThere is something very seductive about the promise of money that comes from nowhere, carries no responsibility, no national authority and thus cannot be said to cause violence(actually anonymous cash is probably responsible for more violence than the official kind). Practically everyone has to manage personal debt so these vague promises of alternative money systems soothe some of the more unpleasant factors of life. How DigiCash Blew Everything
In September 1998 the high-tech company DigiCash finally went bankrupt. The office in Palo Alto, California remained open for a while but it was merely a stay of execution. Two months ago the company filed for Chapter 11.
Nobody realises, but with the "pending failure" of DigiCash, a bit of Dutch Glory died. The company made a brilliant product. Even Silicon Valley was jealous of the avant garde technology invented in the Amsterdam Science Park. Internet "guru" Nicholas Negroponte went so far as to call the electronic payment system, ecash1, "the most exciting product I have seen in the past 20 years." The rise and fall of DigiCash: a story of paranoia, idealism, amateurism and greed.
David Chaum
The name of one man stands out way above anyone else in the history of DigiCash: David Chaum, US citizen, born into a wealthy family, brilliant mathematician and one who had to always have things his own way2. After travelling around the world he ended up in Amsterdam in the late 80's. Here, he became head of the cryptography department of the CWI (Centre of Mathematics and Information Science). Cryptography is the science of encoding and decoding of data, in order to maintain privacy. Chaum had built a big reputation in this field in the previous few years. Insiders estimated he was in the top 5 of the world at the time.
And at the CWI, they also worked on electronic payment systems. In the early 90s, Rijkswaterstaat3 became interested as they were thinking about introducing automatic toll-collection roads. Chaum got together a few researchers, mainly from earlier contacts with the university of Eindhoven. All guys who knew each other through a "young researchers" programme sponsored by Philips. They had all spent their youth programming behind a computer. Enthusiastically they started, and within little over a week the job was done. |
|
|
|
According to FINCEN.
care to back up that statement with some information? I know it's asking a lot around here. |
|
|
|
Chris, sorry if you're having another emotional fit- but maybe if you READ my message you would have learned that: the various contributors need to give you a WRITTEN SIGNED CONSENT before you dual license the software to any other company. Basically, if what you say is true, then for anyone to use OpenTransactions for business purposes they need to get legal consent from EVERY CONTRIBUTOR- this includes of course, yourself. This means also that if you provide some service that includes a dual-license agreement, and other do not claim the copyright at the time of signing - they can do so later, for presumably any price. You might want to inform your customers of that. so this message goes out to anyone who has checked anything into the OpenTransactions GPL code. if you would have bothered following any of those links it's more or less a forgone conclusion that GPL is not business compatible. Youre really several steps behind the curve as far as Open Source goes. But it seems you don't have many smart friends to tell you these things. I wonder why? not sure why you keep linking that thread, there's nothing in there but a explanation of my history with this project and more information about how what you say is totally misleading. [1] oh, and too bad you can't lock this thread when the conversation goes in a direction you dont like- similar to what you did in the last 3 that I participated in. Or maybe you can make some more Reddit sock puppet accounts? [1] btw - Chris is ONCE AGAIN claiming that Open Transactions is Peer To Peer. Of course Chris finds a way to talk about himself while making it *look like* he's talking about some other project. http://www.reddit.com/r/Namecoin/comments/1fua6b/your_project_is_important_and_i_am_behind_you/ |
|
|
|
I created a system that can accomplish this
I hardly understand your white paper (I am a non-techie with poor English), but if you really created such a system then big WOW for you  The reason why I focused on a data feed matter is my futures and forex trading experience. There are market data vendors that charge monthly from USD 100 (I use those cheap data vendors) http://www.iqfeed.net/index.cfm?displayaction=data§ion=fees through USD 1-3k http://www.barchartmarketdata.com/solutions_datafeed_pricing.php up to USD 10k per month for high quality data (like Bloomberg). Transmitting quality data in acceptable latency mode can be resource (capex on servers and opex on electricity and lines) consuming. The decentralized exchange system should be designed to provide for remuneration to full data nodes (market data distributors). Just like now Bitcoin system is designed to provide remuneration to miners. thanks! yes, Im somewhat familiar with those kind of information services. I have worked on Wall St. for a period pre-9/11. There are some very complex problems when considering the issue of time series over a p2p network. As a matter of fact Bitcoin itself descended from a 'distributed timestamping' algorithm. So with any market you need to find a way to have all nodes agree that transactions appear in a specific ORDER. This is required for simple account transfers, or more complex arrangements such as an order book. My system solves this problem WITHOUT mining. when the system gets to the point where it's usable, I'll announce on here and perhaps we can talk about supporting higher level use cases. |
|
|
|
I'm only part way through 2 of yr articles so far but I just wanna say thanks for an awesome job. This sort of documentation is exactly what new devs need to get across the client quickly.
Are you planning to publish this series on a site somewhere? It would be great to have it all in one place where people can bookmark it and find it easily for reference. It's going to get buried eventually in the forum.
yes. this is a good public resource, thanks. there are also some fairly good docs about the Bitcoin client mechanics on the BitcoinJ wiki: http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/ |
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with Ripple making an entrance to the monetary market. I also don't have a problem with its creators pre-mining or centrally administering it. They are free to do whatever they want, and I believe in competing currencies. What I would have a problem with however is purposeful misrepresentation. If the Ripple guys want to maintain certain privileges that's fine with me, but be forthright about it and let the market take over from there.
right. Ripple does employ quite a bit of 'doublespeak'. http://ripplescam.org/Chris even more so. He has made no less than THREE topic postings about his recent self described 'holy grail'(that's just on this forum). Im probably one of the few people alive who can really say informed things about what is inside OT. We have lots of 'for profit' companies. Mt Gox for instance. No one is demanding they do this or that- but these two other projects are quite different really. It's a kind of social engineering effort, one far more sophisticated than the other(Chris was and still is a professional internet marketer). If what Chris says is true, he has gone into debt to some venture capitalist. This has a tendency to shape your behavior. People have made similar offerings to me, but I'm not so naive and immature. Personally I think that digital currency technology reacts with investment money in unique ways- think about it: IT IS A MONEY/INVESTMENT technology itself. Thus, to achieve the goals of such, it must in effect challenge the very NATURE of investment capital. This is why every single digital currency company flopped, and also why the only technology to ever take off was completely non-proprietary(and I mean that in the full sense of the term). And not only non-proprietary, but completely anonymous.Thus any technologies that will any impact must be free from proprietary hooks. Neither OT nor Ripple qualify for this. here is a post I just made describing some of the issues regarding Open Transactions licensing model. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172705.msg2411466#msg2411466 |
|
|
|
Ripple is a brilliant idea and an amazing concept needed to link everything together.
Here these people talk about a for profit business without thinking why people mine BTC's in the first place and how many Satoshi must be holding along with DPR and others.
It amazes me some of the idiocy on these forums!
- SkullCard
well, it's a subtle thing really. If the technology doesn't deliver us something better than the existing money system, then it has no purpose. |
|
|
|
First, the "closed source" thing. This has been a source of suspicion, but as a software developer I think they are still just working the bugs out and I have no reason to believe they won't release their code when they feel comfortable doing so. (If you don't feel comfortable with that -- fair enough, don't use it yet.)
That makes no sense. Everyone knows the best way to root out bugs and improve code is to make something open source. Money on the other hand is a strange thing. Once it has traction and is widely accepted it's hard to take that away. Look at how inferior fiat money is, yet how hard it is to dislodge it. It's rather hilarious to me that Chris is making excuses for them at this point. and I think you're right, if these things gain a level of traction and 'easy use', then it'll be difficult to dislodge them. Problem is we won't have any more 'monetary freedom' at the end of the day, and wasn't that the reason were here in the first place? |
|
|
|
To clarify, the design provides:
• Fully decentralised history of trading data; volumes traded and inter currency rates going back over time.
• Fully decentralised history of bid/ask data; a set of the bid/ask history going back over time.
These can be tonnes of data (over time) if transactions are frequent. Will the system users pay for downloading these data? From whom? - a decentralized system of data brodcasters should be established just like a system of escrow agents. • System will also include live bid/ask data.
The above is good for depth of market (DOM) analysis, but you will most importantly need: • Live trading data (in ticks) - data of actual transactions happening is needed to plot charts. It would be okay if the timestamping were not just in seconds. If the system is to succeed, in future you need at least milliseconds or even microseconds (for both historical and real-time events (ticks). I created a system that can accomplish this, and there is no proprietary hooks in it at all. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing |
|
|
|
Don't jump to conclusions... I think that their idea here is awesome. They're saying that the network, like bitcoin is open. And that one client software (like bitcoin-qt) is open, and another client software (Like armory) is to be closed and sold so that they can make some money. That's a great way to monetize open source. I've been in the open source world for a while and I've seen many of these ideas come and go. Many of them are listed here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/11-open-source-business-models/5371I have, however, NEVER seen any of these 'professional open source companies' ever produce something that is qualitatively different than any other commercial company. The large majority of them never even managed to 'harness the community' of open source developers. Rarely, if ever, has another group successfully forked a 'commercial open source' code base and turned it into something useful- so this option primarily exists as a marketing device. Consider this: did anyone ever attempt to commercialise Bitcoin code? is there a 'commercial' client floating around? |
|
|
|
Just going to say... ripple was made for profit, do you really trust a for profit company?
Screw socialism. I trust for profit companies. the next thing that's going to happen in this space is a wave of 'for profit' companies attempting to co-opt the community in a variety of ways. It's very simple really- the average person simply isn't concerned with what gave Bitcoin life- but rather they are just interested in what it gives them. It's just like the United States- most people are unaware and unconcerned as to why America is a prosperous place, they only want their hamburger. They are not concerned about constitutional law, it's erosion, or even removal. Take away that hamburger though and they'll be rioting the streets. So these new wave of groups[1] are spending money on PR to appear as if they are identical, or similar, to Bitcoin. I've pointed out a number of reasons why the stories of either of these projects don't add up. It's not surprising that Chris sought out their support, because this is the nature of the way money works- it's tends to agglomerate and centralize. And this is exactly why Bitcoin is so important, and it's also exactly why you need to be diligent when considering these other projects. [1] which if you have the time and energy to look closely are not open at all |
|
|
|
Just going to say... ripple was made for profit, do you really trust a for profit company?
Both Ripple and Open Transactions are for-profit projects. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
