Also, you never explained why 'it's not true' that XRPs cannot be issued at will. Explain me how I can be sure of that. We all know and can verify the proof of work of every last bitcoin. What about XRPs, how can I be sure opencoin doesn't start issuing them at will?
good points. Here's another similar question for Ripple: if the entire system is going to be open source, what's stopping people from forming an entire separate network with a new set of XRPs? Clearly these things already have value for some reason, or are being treated as such. In an open source scenario, I can create another set of XRPs, let's call them MeanieDollars, that do the exact same thing as XRPs. That is, if Ripple will indeed go open source. |
|
|
|
open source means quite simply: the source is open for all to see. There is really no justification for why you would want to open source it later, unless of course you were waiting to file patents. We've explained this several times in many places. There's a very important reason not to release the source too early -- once the source is released, the system is very hard to change. Imagine if Bitcoin had gone open source before the decision to decrease the block reward was made. Groups that had invested in mining might oppose the choice to make the block reward schedule decrease, even if that was in the long-term best interests of almost everyone. We chose a plan that allows us to get community input while the design can still be changed, and we are still making changes to the design based on community input. (We believe we now know what the design will be when we open source. So we're not changing that design, just finishing it.) As soon as the source is open, design changes will require convincing the community. And even some design changes that almost everyone wants may be very difficult to do. And what will stop people from changing these terms after you release it as open source? I've been working with open source for over a decade, including p2p systems and I've never heard of such a justification in my life. This isn't the only peculiar thing about the Ripple project. Seems you didn't offer to answer my other question: how will the server be licensed? |
|
|
|
Saying that too much community input would slow down your development is a cop-out because you could release the code for people to review and ignore input...but that would also be somewhat awkward ignoring customer base input. We can't release the code for people to review and ignore input. If we ignored input, we'd be in the minority and be ignored. Ripple is based on consensus. As soon as the code is open sourced, other people start running validators, and people start trusting those validators, the network will be run by that consensus. We can make suggestions, but if they are rejected by that consensus, if we follow them, we will be ignored just like any Bitcoin transaction that doesn't meet the rules is ignored. why does it seem that all these digital currency companies springing up all seem to have some kind of idiosyncratic interpretation of what 'open source' means? open source means quite simply: the source is open for all to see. There is really no justification for why you would want to open source it later, unless of course you were waiting to file patents. |
|
|
|
I've solicited technical solutions to this problem on this forum. It would be awesome if Bitcoins could be used on other decentralized systems without having to trade on the blockchain (both because it would be faster and because it could enable things like microtransactions) or trust a central authority to hold the Bitcoins. I've yet to hear one. I'm still looking.
have you looked at this? https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing |
|
|
|
Seems I was under the wrong impression that ripple was not open source, dunno why.
The server is not open source yet. Once the server is open source, we'll have to obtain a consensus on every feature change that affects what transactions are valid or what effects they have, just like Bitcoin does. I used to say we sometimes make those kinds of changes three times a day. We're probably down to once a week at most now. how will the server be licensed? how will this consensus be determined? |
|
|
|
Re: bluemeanie1 As long as you are posting in my threads, I think it's important that people know your true motives.I am also saving a record of all of your false public statements. For the record: I do not, nor have I ever, engaged in spam marketing.remember those ads you would get about 2 years ago for books about how to pick up girls? that was Chris. |
|
|
|
of course it's not centralized, it's peer to peer. You could for instance run a currency from your cell phone. Many of the claims made on this thread re. OT don't really make much sense, and the discussions appear distorted- seems to be common whenever the subject is Open Transactions...
I suggest people take "bluemeanie1" with a grain of salt. do you suggest that? You were the one who wanted to remove the thread. Meanwhile, you have absolutely NOTHING to show for your claims. Im starting to suspect that you are sock puppeting here, Reddit, and other sources of information on Bitcoin. This new "OT + BitMessage = Kingdom Come" seems to have been exactly timed at the release of my paper(which you keep claiming you never read, but also referred to numerous times). Being that Chris can't seem to conduct himself without making personal attacks(this is the second time), he forces me to account for our work together, his plan to commercialize OT at the expense of the community, and his all round sketchiness. Why does it seems OT is being discussed, but no one seems to know exactly what it does? This doesn't sound like an open source project to me. That's because it isn't one. How many open source projects do you know that have no real users, appear to be discussed constantly on every subject imaginable, and no one seems to know how it works, and there is a company already formed to implement ideas using it? Remember Chris was an spam marketer before he decided to become a digital currency guru, this is probably why he knows a thing or two about how to hide your IP, how Tor works, etc. Just consider how many REAL people you know who claim to have used OT for something useful. Many people I know personally were complaining about his recent spam initiative entering their space through a variety of vectors and how annoying it was. Meanwhile, all I am doing on here is talking about a completely free and open digital currency concept which Chris appears to hate with a passion. IT SLICES, IT DICES, IT JULIANNES, IT'S OPEN TRANSACTIONS(tm)! now with P2P flavor! buy now and get a free internet! of course we can say that OT does all these things. We can also say a toaster does the same things as a 747 if we just add a fuselage, a jet engine, wings, and a few other features. We would only have this scenario if someone were trying to SELL us the toaster. That might provide you with a hint. do not trust this spam marketing leprechaun, I unfortunately did. |
|
|
|
But it is just a concept, right? There are tons of P2P exchange 'concepts' out there .... code, or it didn't happen. Besides when you have 50 or 100 identical exchange servers performing identical signatory tasks ... is that really still centralized? I don't see how. you obviously didn't read the paper. a detailed discussion can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=212841.msg2280478#msg2280478of course it's not centralized, it's peer to peer. You could for instance run a currency from your cell phone. Many of the claims made on this thread re. OT don't really make much sense, and the discussions appear distorted- seems to be common whenever the subject is Open Transactions. It's almost as if there is a internet marketing(spam) expert behind all this. Adding Bitmessage to OT does not make it Peer-To-Peer. |
|
|
|
http://www.american-buddha.com/orlin.vince.5.htm"This is a story about the uses of propaganda, whereby appeals to "terrorism," "money-laundering," "child pornography," and other handy bugaboos are cited by the Overlords of the Surveillance State as an excuse to send jack-booted thugs to "protect us," to monitor our every action to make sure we toe the current political line, and to create vast financial data bases to ensure we get taxed to pay for all of the above. " this isn't a new trend. http://orlingrabbe.com/money1.htm"These elements all want to know where your money comes from, and when and how you spend it. After all, you might be a terrorist, drug dealer, or spy. And if you try to hide your transactions, you are by definition a money launderer and perhaps a child pornographer." (written in 1995) who can actually take the WSJ seriously at this point? "And at the press conference it was explicitly stated that there is no ill will toward virtual currencies, only towards certain things they may be used for, which is fantastic news." oh yes... they just want to protect us from ourselves, right?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AynGBMUgdmg
|
|
|
|
That said, I will definitely investigate your "Confidence Chains". Always interested in learning about possible improvements to the current way of doing things.
btw- anyone is free to implement Confidence Chains. just for the sake of cooperation, I do plan to develop a framework in Java for people who want to use Confidence Chains for financial apps. If you are a developer and see the value in confidence chains, we can work together. It will be BSD/Apache licensed as this allows others to commercialize the software. I believe in crediting people, so if you want to get involved, first we decide on a title, and then hopefully you live up to this entitled position. Im especially interested in talking to a good 'big data' person who knows a lot about storing and processing Tree Data structures on disk efficiently. Also people from the Bitcoin world are very welcome, many of the ideas from Bitcoin are applicable here. -bm |
|
|
|
http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions this shows TXs per day on the BTC chain. It may be possible to upgrade the p2p network to scale upwards according to the Bitcoin Wiki. We don't know precisely how things will play out at this point. Seems the core devs are open to a number of ideas. Confidence Chains was recently released, so they may not be aware of this option. I know some of the core devs were critical of Colored Coins, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577 . The subject is fairly controversial at this point. Keep in mind also that on the NYSE there is a significant barrier to entry for new 'asset types' (ie Stocks). On Colored Coins, there are none. So lets just say roughly EACH coin color will produce on average T transactions. This means that colored coins will produce C*T transactions where C = number of colors. The number of colors could be in the thousands, even millions. Perhaps there is even a compound relationship between C and T. There is an initial 'sacrificial' cost in BTC to starting a Color Coin, but it does not really act as a regulator in this case. -bm
|
|
|
|
Colored Coins are a sound idea as far as the official claims made about them. I don't think that they are going to meet the capacity demands of a real distributed exchange. the statistic I mentioned before : NYSE has roughly 2,000,000,000 trades PER DAY.the Bitcoin network currently has roughly 55,000 trades per day, and capacity and latency are already problems. Confidence Chains are highly scalable. Transactions can happen instantaneously. To run a p2p exchange you need to interact in the real world at some point. The digital currencies have a relationship to the real world currencies, themselves which ideally have a relationship to real world value(initially the USD had a strict relationship with Gold value). So I don't think we're going to get around that. The idea that bytemaster had for pegging the interest rates of bonds to a some kind of price publishing service assumes a lot about the availability, validity, and veracity of this information service. If such an idea were to be widespread, I could for instance buy all the gold, and then manipulate this ticker in some way, profit from it, and then sell off the gold when the price signals return to reality. But most importantly, using Confidence Chains, you could have an informal kind of real world money changing- something like Satoshi Square in NYC. People would be willing to exchange Digital Gold for real gold if they were fully convinced it were worth real gold. They can even tack on a transaction fee if they feel it's necessary. No one in this equation need be incorporated or act as a money transfer service, or even own a bank account[1]. Mining introduces specific characteristics to the currency, it inflates the supply. This often is overlooked by the Bitcoin community because it has yet to seriously effect the price of BTC, but certainly it will in the future. Color Coins have an interesting and complex relationship to mining. The base BTC, which relies on mining, is a kind of carrier to Color Coins, and recently it's been determined that to move Color Coins will require the expenditure of BTC(for each transaction, not just the Genesis Transaction). Latency is also going to be very prohibitive as I describe above. You can review my points on these subjects on the BitcoinX Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/bitcoinx , the project currently looks something like Ripple with a 'carrier' currency used to purchase resources from the transaction processors. Now consider for a moment that we had a p2p exchange using the main block chain. Miners are ultimately the ones who decide what transactions go where. This system works because there is no incentive to prioritize transactions, but if these transactions carry OTHER values(eg. Colored Coins), then miners will compete to put transactions in specific orders- which, make an full-fledged exchange effectively impossible using standard Bitcoin technology, because there is no way to arrive at some kind of valid consensus on the chronological order of transactions. It was these findings that lead to my development of the Confidence Chains concept. [1] you can actually run a bank using Confidence Chains. You could start a small savings club with your friends, take their USD deposits, offer interest rates, and loan out the money to your friends. Many instruments are possible. 1) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts 2) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property |
|
|
|
Each and every time a large government of any type, be it democracy or commune or republic or whatever, falls, it exhibits the exact traits we are seeing today in the USA and Euro... On the way down the drain to complete collapse with hyperinflation and sometimes mass democide.
Governments have always, and always will, rely on their monopoly of force in times of distress. It's their one tool... And guess what? They're becoming distressed. One advantage to the Confidence Chains model is that you can place authorities in a number of jurisdictions. For example, one authority goes in China, another one goes in Switzerland, another in Panama, US, UK, Germany, Russia, Brazil and even some autonomous zones eg. Transnistria. Given that there exist authority nodes in each of these places, no one government can shut down the currency. The authorities in ALL these countries must cooperate to shut down the currency. ALL the nodes must be seized in order to shut down the currency [3]. This is unlikely and probably impossible[2], and some authorities could be practically untraceable- ie running behind Tor from a dialup in Kamkatchka[1]. If one authority node were shut down or seized in some way(and these authorities could be run from a cell phone), transactions continue unabated. You could potentially designate thousands of authorities. You could create a complex system to derive authority. There are far more techniques to evade seizure than there are laws to justify such a seizure. thus, Confidence Chains offers a new level of political resilience. -bm [1] even very radical ways to connect could be innovated eg. embedding the transactions in images via steganography, and transacting through an image post board. [2] until we have a "one world government". [3] and note that in this case the people who seized the currency do not have the ability to steal assets, only prohibit transactions. |
|
|
|
|
you can download the pdf if you want.
did you have problems viewing it?
|
|
|
|
|
if you have any questions just let me know.
I am working on an upcoming paper that discusses how chains get formed under a variety of authoritative scenarios.
ex.
FIAT
ONE authority to rule them all. In this scenario one single authority manages the chain and can put anything it wants in there in any order, or it may omit anything. This structure is easy to manage and set up, not so easy to convince people to use.
TRIUMVIRATE
THREE authorities of equal power. Any 2 can override the third. This structure offers you the most stability vs. complexity tradeoff. Offers a sense of non-bias to users if the 3 authorities are disparate enough.
TRUSTEE
MORE THAN THREE authorities of equal power. Similar to TRIUMVIRATE but more nodes. Attention should be given to power geometry eg. odd number is favorable as it prevents stalemates.
KING AND COURT
ONE authority has MOST of the power, but the 'court' can override if unanimous. Operates somewhere in between FIAT and TRUSTEE.
of course more complex scenarios are possible, such as authority power deriving from membership in a social network. Authority does NOT stem from Proof of Work, there is NO mining.
|
|
|
|
|
Mylon,
practically everything you mention could be supported with Confidence Chains. The core problem is how to reliably and objectively manage transaction ORDER(ie. chronology) over a P2P network with unstable latency and connectivity. Not exactly an easy problem to solve. Confidence Chains solves it by allowing N identities negotiate the order of transactions as they appear in the chain. Thus different nodes may receive a transactions at different times, but they all must agree as to what order they appear in the transaction record. Order is extremely important for exchanges. If someone has some kind of fiat power over the order of transactions, they can manipulate the market and determine winners and losers.
thus it works like this:
we have tx1 - tx10, they arrive at each node N at different times, but it is possible to determine the intended chronology to an extent.
how does the exchange decide the chronological order? Confidence Chains has an algorithm that allows these nodes to negotiate this order. Many configurations are possible.
This makes it possible not only to build a p2p exchange, but a p2p auction, and many other financial instruments, in addition to the basic feature which is asset issuance and transactions.
"5 years down the road, you have hunderds of different crypto currencies, and / or crypto shares being traded." the NYSE has close to 2,000,000,000 trades PER DAY. There will be far more than a few hundred currencies/shares/asset types.
-bm
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen this is not the place for your grievances. The purpose of this thread is to address the notion of a p2p exchange and the technology required to make it both secure and minimize the need for trust. If you have something to contribute towards that end, then please do so. We cannot nor desire to get involved in your business affairs.
I agree fully, and this is why I will not be responding to "bluemeanie1" beyond my single response. It's unfortunate that he felt the need to get inappropriate and defamatory on this forum in the first place. If he erases, I pledge to do the same. Chris, are you trying to appear as if you're not attacking me personally? I mean, have you bothered looking back on this thread? I haven't stated anything inaccurate or distorted. Of course Chris wants to take this thread down, he looks like an complete clown. regarding the other comment here, someone like Chris is really exploiting the openness of the community. Everything I've said is 100% true, if you want to believe whatever claims he is currently making, that's your problem and the risk you run communicating on the internet this way. As I said, anyone can come meet me IRL(see above). I don't like getting into discussions like this, but if Chris chooses to attack me, he leaves me no choice. I haven't done anything wrong. What Chris forgot is that I have proof of all my claims. here's a highly relevant question: if Open Transactions is really a 'community' open source project, why is Chris so defensive if anyone is critical about it? sounds almost as if this is some kind of property of his... doesn't it?have a great Memorial Day. -bm ps. what serendipitous timing to come out with this new BitMessage + OT idea exactly when I released my paper(that Chris claim he never read). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
