Actually, they are best answered here (see above), but they are best asked there. Sorry... semantics.  How would you know where they are best answered if you never tried the other section to compare? Semantics back....  |
|
|
|
I'm not even sure how you came up with that analysis of OT? open transactions owns the servers and the source. No, it is an open source project. You can run the software on any server you want. From their website: "The Open-Transactions project is a collaborative effort to develop a robust, commercial-grade, fully-featured, free-software toolkit implementing the OTX protocol as well as a full-strength financial cryptography library, API, CLI, and prototype server. The project is managed by a worldwide community of volunteers that use the Internet to communicate, plan, and develop the Open-Transactions toolkit and its related documentation." open transactions appears to want you to deposit your funds, which then get spread across several of THEIR servers which then gives you a balance in their desktop client. and funds would only move if the majority of those dispursed servers see the trade agreement has been made and athenticated. No...you will use gateways to deposit into the network open transactions is not decentralised. From their website: "Is Open-Transactions centralized? The vision is not of a central server that you must trust. Rather, the vision is of federated servers you don't have to trust." (Albeit it is not decentralized in regards to the true purest meaning) It is simply an open source project that allows a federation of servers (you don't need to trust) to facilitate the transactions. All the code is available on github so you do not need to use "their" server. You can choose any server on the network. |
|
|
|
The funds would never sit on a server & escrow would not be needed. They stay in your wallet until the transaction is performed. The server acts as a notary to the transaction using M of N to pass the keys once the contract is fulfilled. You client software would digitally sign the keys so they are not intercepted. No one other than the two parties involved would ever have access to the coins.
so you say you want server involvement.. ok then. so lets say the server is the one that takes Jacks passphrase: k46d3n6b8mfi4nfif9nfwlg and Jills: rmertkdf034mgsdfkdg and combines them to make a escrow address for the DollarCoin and the Bitcoin. it does not save the passprase or the privkeys. just saves the public key and posts back the public keys to be filled. once the server sees the funds are confirmed jack and jill resend their passphrases and the server uses them to make the privkeys to send the funds to the recipient. so all the server saves in the database is public keys, although given a bit of trust to atleast process addresses. or do you mean funds move away from available balance into a locked in address still in the client program. which then when other person also moved funds to the locked address. then funds transfer.. again how to prevent sourcecode tweaking to unlock funds (finding the hidden privkey) I am not the best at trying to explain this difficult concept in a thread. The first video I posted of Chris Odom explains the complete procedure using voting pools and multisig and how it would be accomplished. I think if you fast forward to about the 9 min mark he will hit on the subject. (But best to watch the entire thing however!) |
|
|
|
in the situation that you posed, when would the automated escrow release the funds, upon receipt or upon x# of confirmations ?
preferably when both escrows (dollacoin and BTC) had one confirm. the protocol would wait for both single confirms then auto send to the recipients addresses. but in a open source p2p program that is sat on someone hard drive. how do you prevent one user tweaking their source code to release funds instantly? The funds would never sit on a server & escrow would not be needed. They stay in your wallet until the transaction is performed. The server acts as a notary to the transaction using M of N to pass the keys once the contract is fulfilled. You client software would digitally sign the keys so they are not intercepted. No one other than the two parties involved would ever have access to the coins. |
|
|
|
|
If you are somewhat computer literate than by all means root it! This will unlock other services/features/programs/performance/battery life/multiboot/etc for you.
Lots of good roms...
Vanir
Paranoid
Psx
Rastakat
You just need to see what works for you. Don't listen to the people afraid to try to root.
Btw ....you do not lose warranty like others are saying. The nexus line is made for people to tinker with and it is easy to restore back to factory settings.
And after you have rooted go install Viper4Android. You will not believe the sound your device is capable of and you will be glad you rooted it!
|
|
|
|
Although I still don't know what you guys are talking about in terms of "decentralized", I can say this: if it can be reviewed, if it can be referred, if more one one person is using it, if it's public, then yes it can and should be rated.
OK, I will try to explain..... Centralized = 1 Entinity Controls = 1 location of server(s) = Government can shut down Decentralized = Nobody controls = many Servers = Censorship resistant Example of centralized Napster Mtgox Paypal Example of Decentralized Bitcoin Bittorrent In a decentralized system, if one of the nodes(servers) go down, the others still continue to operate as normal. A decentralized exchange network would give us these benefits. Nobody could interrupt the system and it would all be trustworthy. When I mentioned "reviewed" I was talking about the computer code that would be launched to startup a network. Programmers can view open source code to make sure there are no hidden back doors or sneaky code hiding inside. Chris Odom, OpenTransactions Project, Explains it better in this video: http://youtu.be/teNzIFu5L70Demo of Opentransactions exchange platform http://goo.gl/i0J3AFHope this helps..... BTW, Love how Chris predicted the demise of MtGox early in the video.... |
|
|
|
...
1) community validation / certification - I would to see some huge size community group (none anonymous) say 1000+ people, vote give star ratings to service providers.
...
Something simple like star ratings would be nice. This is a feature that usually works really well due to the fact that it represents independent peer reviews, something that could fit bitcoin really well. If nothing else if would make sure the vast majority of newcomers picks a trustworthy service. There was a session at the Texas bitcoin conference where this issue was discussed, and there was some interesting ideas there, even though I fear we could easily end up with a cartel like situation if we don't get it right. TOTALLY WRONG!! Decentralized is only way to go..... The only reason you would "rate" a service is because it is centralized. A decentralized system is trusted by the mathematics and not because someone gave it a star rating. Hell, do you rate my p2p bitcoin server I am running at my house with a "star rating"!? Decentralized exchange services will not need any rating by anyone. It will be trusted because the code running the exchange service can be reviewed and cryptography ensures it's trustworthyness. |
|
|
|
Descentralized is utopia, not possible.
Holding private keys would make it slow, not a live exchange.
Decentralization IS possible, and it IS coming. Lots of projects being worked on right now. I think OpenTransactions will be one of the front runners to open up the new technology. It is not possible if it involves actual money. Sorry, but you are clueless. |
|
|
|
Descentralized is utopia, not possible.
Holding private keys would make it slow, not a live exchange.
Decentralization IS possible, and it IS coming. Lots of projects being worked on right now. I think OpenTransactions will be one of the front runners to open up the new technology. |
|
|
|
just like Taras said, decentralized exchange is what bitcoin needs. However i assume USD conversion will be a challenge since that requires some form of centralization.
Actually (in a perfect world) a decentralized exchange would just use payment gateways for getting money in & out. You deposit (or withdraw) money at the gateway. They give you some type of verification usually in the form of a crypto like ripple XRP. If your favorite gateway goes belly up, you just find another gateway processor. No centralization at all! |
|
|
|
|
Don't you just love when people post stuff without following the guidelines. (No date in title!). And then someone comes along a revives a post in this section that is 3 months old!
|
|
|
|
Armory M of N backup of an offline created wallet stored in multiple different physical locations.
"What is the best way to sercurly store bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies" Sorry, but armory will not do other cryptos. Only truly safe way for those would be a paper wallet. That being said, there is no reason you couldn't safely keep a wallet on a USB or offline computer as well and still sleep at night. |
|
|
|
When you conflate irrelevant details, it exhibits low IQ.
When you post idiotic polls that start with implicit assumptions and end with dumb logic, it tends to suggest that you're just fucking retarded. +1 I like this response. |
|
|
|
|
Another weird Dorian fact....
Love this quote from the AP
Asked if he was technically able to come up with the idea for bitcoin, Nakamoto responded: "Capability? Yes, but any programmer could do that."
How many people are really technically capable? It has been suggested that there is only three hundred people in the world with the knowledge and skill to have done this.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, Huobi has been accused of "manipulating" their numbers/volume. I wouldn't be surprised if they are continuing to fake their data.
|
|
|
|
1. Still in development - just in beta 2. Adoption not realized. (Network not established) 3. Learning curve. (This new technology takes some reading to understand/comprehend) 4. Market is still maturing. Takes time for people to adapt. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
