I know the ERC223 specification has been out there for at least a few months now, and it does offer advantages over ERC20.

I am unsure if it's supported in current wallets. I know it's backwards-compatible with respect to the methods it implements (ERC223 is a superset of ERC20), however I haven't looked into it enough to know if there is anything needed for wallet/client implementation.

It's most certainly the way that Ethereum tokens are going to go at, least it's v.next.

Best regards,
Ben

Thank you very much. Yes we have spent a lot of time focusing on the best way to deliver real value to our donors and others in the emerging technology community.  Being able to focus on aspects that aren't often considered and implemented as well as they need to be has given us a great perspective on how to do this.  One example is the need for projects to have a close examination of how their project is governed. It needs to be sufficient but not overbearing -- more fluid and dynamic approaches that remain focused on the goal and mission can be the key that separates a successful project that delivers from one that is "a great idea", but had stumbling blocks.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi All,

This is an old thread but I just wanted to thank you all for your guidance back in September when I was in the initial phases of writing the white paper for the non-profit charity that launched today as BTRIC, Blockchain Technology Research Innovations Corporation.

Your insights were very helpful in guiding me in reaching out to the community.

I appreciate it very much.

Best regards,
Ben

One of the things that I personally have concerns about is Tether's influence in leveraged trading.  I haven't taken a deep dive into the issue, I've been working on getting our Initial Donor Offering launched.  However, from what I've read they appear to be engaging in Fed style "printing". I'll read the linked thread later today and post over there.

I agree. Bitcoin is changing the world and the biggest proof of what decentralization on a massive scale is capable of. It's a great time to be alive.

Article I wrote today:

How Blockchain Technology Took Over My Life - BTRIC

A look back at how I came to know — and love — blockchain and other emerging technology and embrace the Decentralization Revolution.

https://medium.com/btric/how-blockchain-technology-took-over-my-life-22c554d8f414

Thanks for reading!

Hi all,

I have a couple of questions about announcement threads before I go post something and make a mess of it, lol.

1. Are announcement posts editable later, as information changes?  By this I mean the first post in a thread?  If so, why do people "reserve" the second and sometimes third posts of the same thread?

2. I am about to announce a project that has a fundraising element (you could think of it as an ICO though it's actually a charity, "Initial Donor Offering", not an investment offering).  We also need to announce a request for members to join our team as staff/contractors.  Would the best way to do this be via two threads, i.e. one under "altcoin announcements" (the one with the donation campaign), and a second thread under "project management" (where we are recruiting a several different competencies to join our team)?  I don't want to run afoul of the rules.

Also, these posts will be done not from this account but from an organizational account that is a Copper Member (paid the fee).  Does that have any bearing on editability of posts and such?

Thanks very much for your assistance.  I searched the forums and couldn't find answers to these questions, so I appreciate any information on them.

Best regards,
Ben

I saw a news article about this just now, here's the link:

Incredible images reveal a futuristic vision inspired by Polynesian traditions for the world's first floating nation planned for the Pacific Ocean by 2020
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5190277/Concept-images-reveal-worlds-floating-nation.html

There is no centralized authority that exercises control over Bitcoin.  That's one of the best parts of the currency.

At the same time, I must say, I do wish some entity had control over the Bitcoin name as a trademark and the logo.  Anyone can fork the code at any time.  I could fork today and make Bencoin, either by starting a new blockchain from scratch or forking the blockchain (like the Bcash), which results in anyone that has BTC now having BEN (no, I'm not really going to do this).  Many altcoins have done exactly this.  The vast majority of them are forks of one or another of the major codebases.  However, much more troublesome, is that someone could fork the code and continue to refer to their fork as "Bitcoin".  It's bad enough with the Bcash, Bgold, etc.  Think of what a coin that held the exact same name would cause in terms of confusion.

I do think that some entity should seek control of their name and logos to try to eliminate that problem in the future.

I also believe that there needs to be standardization among the currency identifiers (BTC, ETH, XMR, etc.).  There is an ISO standard for country based currencies, I believe a standard should be created for cryptocurrencies.  There are differences between exchanges and these have caused problems for people.  These "little things", in my view, hold back wider adoption because of confusion.  I've also seen them used as potential weapons (during the S2X drama, there was talk of some entities referring to S2X AS BTC on their platforms.)  I believe there should be a neutral party that administers these identifiers, similar to how ICANN/IANA and the RIRs issue identifiers for the Internet, such as ASNs, RFCs, PENs, and TLDs.

This is certainly a very promising idea, and I am quite sure that you'd be able to negotiate with a number of countries for favorable terms provided you offer them the prospect of stable GDP growth in some way.  Not necessarily taxation, but some economic tie-in to their economy, maybe by using local vendors for supplies or transport.  Countries are eager to do deals and joint ventures, and while this is a pretty extreme example of such an arrangement, I have no doubt you could get countries bidding for your business, similar to how Amazon recently set up a competition between cities to offer them the most favorable terms for their second headquarters.  There are many countries with coastlines around the world and if done properly you could essentially be granted "territory" status of the country, similar to how Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico are for the United States.

As society moves forward, decentralizing everything, starting first with money as Bitcoin has made possible, but all legacy structures of power and control is very viable with technologies such as blockchain distributed ledger.  I'm going to look at the Seasteading Institute website closer and their spin-off Blue Frontiers.  This project in French Polynesia merits further review.

It's a great idea and please do keep posting your progress!

It's only natural that as Bitcoin adoption grows, there will be more women involved in it.  There already are quite a few, they might not be as "boisterous" as the men in all cases.  Quietly HODLing their stash.  Smart.

Many technology fields were (and many still are) dominated by men.  This is changing, and it will be great to see more women involved in all aspects of technology.

There isn't a lost opportunity with Bitcoin.  On the contrary, the opportunity with Bitcoin is immense.

Remember, you don't have to obtain a whole Bitcoin all at once, you can start small and grow as you can.  I think that throws a lot of people, to be honest.  Bitcoin is a currency, not a stock.  It can be divided into units as small as 0.00000001 BTC (fractional part of 8 units to the right of the decimal).

Regulation will be coming.

But it will be a good thing, IMO.  It will legitimize the currency, end differing definitions of what Bitcoin "is" at various regulators, and probably put in place a framework for ICOs that balances the innovative financing model with some level of protection.  They're also looking at chartering limited purpose Federal banks for crypto exchange businesses, which might sound scary but the reality is they would be a big benefit in legitimizing the business model without having to go through the 40+ states that require money transmitter licenses.

Some regulation is necessary for widespread, mainstream trust and acceptance.  Which seems counter-intuitive to some extent but that's the fact of the matter.

Deploying a web wallet for cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin, is basically painting a huge "HACK ME" sign on your entire infrastructure -- websites, DNS, email, backend, telephones, ISP, physical location, etc.  Even your social media and marketing needs to be resilient -- phishing attacks have occurred.

Strong security audits of infrastructure and codebase are essential to do prior to launch and on an ongoing basis.  Appropriate policies and procedures for back office functions are also essential to ensuring that your employees or team members do not succumb to temptation.  Basically you should extend a "trustless" model to your entire operation with multiple layers of fail safe measures.  And careful audits/monitoring during operations.

Think about it... what measures would you want a web wallet to take to protect YOUR BTC?  What measures would you want your bank to take to protect your fiat?

That's where you start.  And you have to keep track of vulnerabilities because they're discovered all the time in all manner of the software you'd need for a web stack.

Etc, etc, etc.  Banks keep money in vaults.  You need to build the digital equivalent of a vault to extend over your entire operation.

Given the considerable opportunity for FUD surrounding the "Bitcoin" name if a fork were to attempt to assume the use of it, has any entity registered "Bitcoin" as a trademark?

I found this from 2015 (a trademark application turned down): http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/03/03/us-application-bitcoin-trademark-turned/

Excerpt:

I see the argument of the Bitcoin Foundation that the word "bitcoin" is a generic term.  Have they considered obtaining a written determination from the USPTO that specifically recognizes it as a generic term, so that it would never be able to be trademarked "stand-alone"?  In the alternative, they could actually consider trademarking it and then granting an unlimited rights license to Bitcoin Core.  These actions could give the Foundation a better ability to protect the mark, as they indicate they are committed to.

Without a written determination that USPTO considers the term generic, I could see a successful legal argument be made that bitcoin is a distinctive "brand" of currency vis-a-vis Disney Dollars.  Unless the Foundation is carefully monitoring trademark applications, something could slip by.

Bitcoin can be traced to some extent, and legal authorities that have power to compel tumblers and exchanges to release information can probably get pretty far in tracing people.  Certainly more traceable than cash.  There is no public distributed ledger for cash transactions.

And cash is used in many, many more crimes than bitcoin.

Any tool can be used for good or evil.

A coin with no use is just a useless coin.  Not worth the paper it's printed on (or its digital analog).  Did I just say digital analog?  Lol.

Nearly all of the altcoins are just clones of a few core projects.  Few bring much to the table.

However, there are a few interesting concepts I follow.  They can be looked at as "laboratories of ideas".  Some of the ideas will bring crypto forward -- with technological innovation, project innovation, organizational structure concepts, etc.  Most, however, will be dead ends.  Such is the nature of any competitive environment.

I just read the article.  I understand some of the technical issues and the purported advantages of S2X.  I also understand the counterarguments.

I support the Core team.  Their record of contributions to the Bitcoin community, to me, speaks for itself.  Much of that is evident in the pages of this forum.  Having been party to "backroom deals" in my life, I do not condone or support them.

This section of your referenced article speaks volumes as to the character of those advocating S2X:

(emphasis mine)

What valid reason do the SegWit2x proponents have to fail to protect the just under $80 billion USD in wealth (as of now) that Bitcoin users have stored on the blockchain?  On the other hand, what reason do those that favor S2X have to gloss over this extremely important facet of the current controversy?

Honestly, I don't know any of the people involved in this, but they seem to be acting like children in refusing to implement strong replay protection.  Children that didn't get their way.  That's not the caliber of person I want committing code to something that I'm involved in.

Really sorry to learn of your loss.  I hope you are able to determine the attack vector.  If it has the characteristics of a vulnerability that could be wider-spread, please consider sharing details with the community so that all can take precautions.

Just goes to show that you always need to keep your guard up, especially with that amount of Bitcoin.  Horrible way to be reminded of this.

I hope you are somehow able to recover them.  Very difficult, but there are some outstanding experts among us on this forum -- some of the very best in the world, they may be able to assist.

I think an interesting related question is...

If someone develops quantum computing technology, in secret/classified, would there be a way to detect it?  I know that quantum computing is quite a ways from being of practical use, at least if you go by what information is available to the public.

However, I also know that quantum computing technology will be of enormous utility to many and believe there could be a strong incentive to develop such technologies in secret, probably sponsored by a government.  So, I believe any mitigation measures to make Bitcoin and other technologies "quantum resistant" should be planned and implemented far in advance of when they are anticipated to be needed.  There is every incentive for quantum developments, especially any breakthroughs that could significantly advance the field, to remain state secrets.

On the other hand, stealing Bitcoin would probably not be at the top of the list of things that a major world power would want to do with a classified quantum computing device.  But I do expect major, unexpected advances to happen in the field that could adjust the time frames that are now considered likely.

Advances in technology are often positive feedback loops.  At least to a point.