Maybe if you use larger, redder text people will strap on their tinfoil hats and indulge in your conspiracy fantasies. There's code available that will implement BIP101 without the rest of the XT patches, btw: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocksThis is what I'm planning to run. |
|
|
|
Sorry if this has already been asked but what would stop any plattform from having "centralized app utilizing blockchains" ? Shouldn't this just be green for all of them ? Or is this to merely point out the existence of such services ? Even if so...they all have block explorers, faucets or whatever  I kind of thought the same. Anybody that has a faucet has a faucet or tip bot or block explorer basically has a centralized service. I was kind of trying to reserve it for applications that are a bit more unique than explorers or tipbots and such, like the MMO or maybe a prediction market or big gambling site or something... |
|
|
|
Well - if you are referring to a "programming language" you should understand that AT is a "virtual CPU". So it is not a high-level language but is a "machine code" (and it should be noted that Ethereum is also not a high-level language but is a VM which is an approach that I think was far less elegant).
So - if you accept that things like RISC chips are "Turing complete" then it should be obvious that AT is (I even gave you the link to a "single instruction virtual CPU" that is "Turing complete" to show just how simple it is to achieve this).
If you don't accept that CPUs (and thus "virtual CPUs") are "Turing complete" then clearly we have nothing further to discuss.
OK, you convinced me - I'll leave Automated Transactions and Turing complete lumped together for now. What is the method to prevent an infinite loop being run in Burst or Qora's Turing complete scripting/instruction set? Just the transaction fee on each "instruction"? Is there a fee market on Burst and Qora a la Ethereum, or a hard-coded fee for each instruction/script/transaction? |
|
|
|
Overstock used to maintain a wikia on the 2.0 projects. Overstock discontinued maintaining their wikia and later launched their own ledger called tØ.
tØ is a blockchain ledger but not a cryptocurrency nor a solutions platform for the public. It is not a "2.0" and not a "1.0" project but something entirely else: "blockchain securities ledger" best describes it.
tØ was designed to do one thing: securities listings. tØ already has 10 stocks listed on it but it is not accessible to the public. I don't think Overstock will ever make tØ public for download. As far as I can tell tØ is closed source and that means most companies would never use it. Would you list your company's equity on something that could have backdoors and other vulnerabilities? There's no reason to when the future will probably have an open source securities ledger.
Interesting, JBC. I'd heard about this t0 project, but didn't realize that it was already live... Edit: I just went to their site, http://t0.com/ , and it looks like every other bootstrap crypto site I've ever seen  |
|
|
|
In the case of Stellar it's a pity, as they seemed to have a less corporate outlook than Ripple.
They seem to have a less corporate outlook, but as far as I can tell it's just subterfuge. The "non-profit" Stellar Foundation doesn't really mean anything: Stellar Development Corporation filed with the Delaware secretary of state as a “non-profit non-stock corporation” on July 2, 2014. This means no shareholders or members have rights to receive the company’s assets or profits. It is a self-declaration, not a judicial or administrative determination.
Even as a self-declaration, it means almost nothing. Delaware does not have additional laws or requirements for non-profit corporations. In New York, for example, there is a Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. In New York, you have to earn not-for-profit status, registering and reporting to the Attorney General’s Charities Bureau, which has conducted many high-profile investigations. (In New York, educational non-profits also have to file for approval from the Department of Education.) None of that exists in Delaware. You just file a certificate of incorporation as a non-stock corporation. But that declaration means nothing—it’s the IRS that will determine whether Stellar is a non-profit, not Stellar itself. Read more at http://observer.com/2015/02/the-race-to-replace-bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
The recent fork in BTC has made me wonder what is the best altcoin that is set up to handle lots of transactions should it become popular?
Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running), secure network and 3 minute blocks does three times or more what btc does in tps - and faster - and less inflationary. I'm asking myself since ages why people don't switch to it. It's basically a faster bitcoin with lower max coins and less inflation. Unobtanium is Bitcoin on steroids. ... All the rest is fucking crap. I think you meant to say Unobtanium is fucking crap. It's a straight clone with a few numbers changed - mainly the total number of coins and halving schedule. So it ends up that 80% of total coins are mined now, and like 50% were mined in the first month or few. So, maybe there's very transactions in the blocks because the vast majority of all total coins were ninja mined by Bryce Weiner and his ninja cohorts, and they are just sitting on their stockpile. Why would someone want to buy into that fucking crap? |
|
|
|
...
CIYAM's "specification" document is wrong as well as imprecise, ATs in themselves are not Turing complete and scarequotes won't make it so. The document, if it aspires to meet the requirements of a specification, should contain the precise details of the features ensuring Turing completeness of the programming language in which the ATs are expressed.
I can understand why people might want to distinguish sharply between ATs and a Turing complete scripting language.
Cheers
Graham
This is my sentiment as well. I'm probably going to split AT and Turing complete into two different rows on the next iteration. I'll add a row for aliasing as well, and remove that from the unique features for Syscoin. Also, sorry Sebastien256, missed that one. I'll add those NXT services next go-around as well. |
|
|
|
Thanks for info and suggestions Table updated with Syscoin, CoinoUSD, Qora founder, and I also added some links at the bottom of the table (and date of last update). I'm still thinking about removing Crypti since it's closed source. I don't think any of the technology can really be verified if the source isn't available. I will try and see what the timeframe is for them to release source code. Lemme know if you have any other info, suggestions, suggested reading, cat pictures, links, corrections, etc. |
|
|
|
Why would any miner update their software to a version that increased the 21 mil cap and lowering the value of all their coins?
I agree, they wouldn't, and the fact that this is being thrown around as a threat if blocksize increases by hardfork is just indicative of the ridiculous level this debate has devolved to. |
|
|
|
You didn't answer the question  |
|
|
|
With all of the back and forth over Core v. XT, and BIP101 v. 1 MB blocks v. something else, it seems like there's never been more disinformation flying around about worthless coins, old blockchains, and tor unmaskings. Blocksize hodlers are sharing links that if this hardfork occurs, the next thing that Hearn, Gavin, and the NSA will impose is an increase in the maximum number of coins (See this link in the IRC transcript below: https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/611844197331693568 ) : [17:47:26] <zeusey> shellak: yes, but as soon as they step foot on the territory of technical arguments, can't we verify them with evidence? [17:47:47] <KipIngram> jwinterm: How do I query blockchain download progress? [17:48:07] <Tim-> belcher: it is Inevitable, the hard fork increases 21milion cap. I'm actually suprised it hasn't happened by now, or has it? [17:48:19] <-- kejoma1 (~kejoma@mobile-166-171-059-131.mycingular.net) has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) [17:48:20] <jwinterm> ./bitcoincli getinfo [17:48:21] <belcher> why is it inevitable? [17:48:25] <-- GAit (~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it) has quit (Quit: Leaving.) [17:48:34] <Tim-> I agree with John Matonis: https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/611844197331693568
[17:48:35] <piqure> ^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^ [17:48:45] <shellak> zeusey: yes, but the trade-offs have different value depending on the stakeholder (even if they agree on the technicals) [17:49:03] <gmaxwell> I do too.
[17:49:06] <ftlio_> Tim- it's not inevitable, but the hard fork definitely shows why/how it can be done [17:49:07] <belcher> me too [17:49:12] <gmaxwell> I think Jon has been spot on with this subject. [17:49:14] <zeusey> late adopters would probably outnumber the early adopters ... late adopters have more reason to inflate [17:49:14] <Tim-> just like altcoins were inevitable, making more hardforks are inevitable [17:49:27] <gmaxwell> ftlio_: it is inevitable that people will propose it (actually people have but not with much force) [17:49:38] <belcher> im currently working on ideas to trade btc-core and btc-xt futures [17:49:46] <ftlio_> tim- ironically, i posted about the incentives possibly being there to never hit zero sum on Reddit, and i assume the same people outcrying for a bigger block size are the same people who told me it's simply not possible [17:49:50] <belcher> so the price between them can be discovered before a hardfork actually happens [17:50:00] <gmaxwell> But it is inevitable that they will propose it with force, and media blitz later- and cries of urgency and perhaps a (manufactuored) disaster.
[17:50:05] --> SuchWow (~SuchWow@unaffiliated/suchwow) has joined #bitcoin [17:50:09] --> jzig (~jzig@69.255.225.198) has joined #bitcoin [17:50:11] <gmaxwell> And we, as a community, must say no.
[17:50:15] <zeusey> shellak: true.. i guess i just havent seen much agreement between both sides on the technical args [17:50:18] <zeusey> as of yet [17:50:24] <belcher> maybe the economic consensus will go heavily towards one side [17:50:41] <gmaxwell> belcher: sounds interesting, but we'd need to make sure the fork is clean and the both sides operate in that case. [17:50:46] <-- Mr_Net (~mr_net@2001:7e8:d694:d501:9dfd:77a6:c814:8ed1) has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) [17:50:59] <gmaxwell> Right now the situation is setup for a big mushroom cloud. Core dev and blocksize hodler gmaxwell says he agrees with that tweet, and that "we, as a community, must say no" otherwise "the situation is setup for a big mushroom cloud. " So, with all these emotions, appeals to emotion, and intentional disinformations flying around...good time to snag some cheap coins? |
|
|
|
...
my prediction: bitcoinxt will fail, and bitcoin will just implement larger block sizes, and carry on about business.
If core implements bip 101, then i don't think xt was a failure at all. I mean, if enough people run xt that core is pushed to implement bip 101, then we basically go back to the same position we're in now (or were six months ago), where xt is just an alternative client. This is kind of my expectation at the moment. Anywho, keep up the good work doges. * jwinterm should buy some more doged |
|
|
|
How are doged people feeling about all the bitcoin core v. xt controversy? Supporting bigger blocks? Believing all the tor blacklisting bullshit? Just curious what other darkdoges thoughts on the subject are...
personally i think tor blacklisting, and the fact that it uses clearnet is just silly/pointless. I'm syncing xt now. I support larger blocks, and this is the only client out there now with larger blocks (possibly to be) implemented, and though I'm not a tor user (torista? torrador?), the tor blacklisting seems to be way overblown. It doesn't blacklist anyone, it's just an attempt to mitigate ddos attacks on nodes that apparently tend to originate from tor - see this reddit explanation: The "transaction blocking" or "Tor blocking" "blacklisting" as variously claimed by FUD-spreader (or confused people) is an anti-DDoS measure that only activates when connections are saturated, i.e. when you're attacked and your node will go dark anyway if you don't do something. Which one will you like, de-prioritizing Tor nodes and hobble along, or just go down in the spirit of fairness?
To be fair the implementation is a bit ham-fisted and not really that effective (can be circumvented with minor effort), but to call it "blacklisting" is just dishonest. If you read Mike's reply originally posted by /u/liliIllill[1] (below), XT actually includes some bugfixes that improve your node's ability to survive non-responding peers and still relax tx.
The "de-anonymizing" part is where XT fetches a list of Tor exit nodes for the de-prioritization described above (from the Tor project itself!). Allegedly it "exposes what your node is doing". But in fact:
As Mike repeatedly pointed out, you already broadcast to the world, loud and clear, that you run a Bitcoin node at your place by putting it on the internet and relaying tx. Fetching a list from the Tor project doesn't change that.
If you're behind a proxy, the fetching doesn't happen. Nope, it doesn't destroy your efforts to stay private.
You can manually disable the whole de-prioritization list thing (and hence stop fetching) in a single line if you really, really hate it. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hrey7/hot_topic_of_the_day_discuss_the_tor/ |
|
|
|
|
Crypti wallet is closed source? No reference implementation?
There isn't even any real detailed explanation of how the protocol works in the whitepaper. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
I would suggest to add the date of the last modification to the chart. This could be usefull.
Good point. I'll try to update this evening and add "last modified:xxxx-xx-xx" at the end. |
|
|
|
|
How are doged people feeling about all the bitcoin core v. xt controversy? Supporting bigger blocks? Believing all the tor blacklisting bullshit? Just curious what other darkdoges thoughts on the subject are...
|
|
|
|
... Dev, thank you for this amazing update! Really appreciate the amount of effort that you guys put in.  Watch out for the quoted text in oldkolobok's post, he changed the links on the Windows executables. Nevermind. It's deleted. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is what is needed for the "market pegged asset" coinoUSD on the Nxt AE. Here is a link: https://coinomat.com/coinousd.phpWhat is CoinoUSD?
CoinoUSD is an asset tied to US dollar, 1 CoinoUSD = 1 dollar. CoinoUSD brings USD to NXT trading directly to NXT blockchain, without using exchanges. We maintain a gateway which allows to buy CoinoUSD asset for USD denominated payment systems. When you buy CoinoUSD asset is it transferred to you, and can be traded or sold back to us. It can even be withdrawn to your bank card! Seems totally centralized (unlike bitshares approach). I guess I'll add it back with caveat about centralized and link to coino site. |
|
|
|
Table updated again. Changed a bunch of stuff to ? or Pending (needs link). Trying to be a bit more skeptical rather than just giving everything green check marks. Still leaning towards leaving NuBits/NuShares and derivatives off. If it's only function is to maintain a market-peg, I don't think that really qualifies as a platform for decentralized trade and asset exchange. I guess I should be more specific about the requirements in the OP. Thinking about removing Crypti if it's closed source. Planning to add Syscoin, just haven't had a chance yet. If there's any other cryptos/coins/platforms/etc that you think should be considered, please let me know |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
