bitcoiners: Identify yourselves. this is Adam. I guess WIW is ariel? whos Tayasset? Meni you are no fun!!
WiW = Ariel, yes. I highly doubt tysat is from Israel. |
|
|
|
It's not healthy for the ecosystem to have a few huge pools. However, a system such as Multi-PPS may make huge pools unneeded. Due to increasing difficulty, it is possible for a fixed hashrate miner to never ever find a block. This is correct. I said that huge pools will be unneeded, not that pools will be unneeded. |
|
|
|
הרצאת ביטקוין מיוחדת, "ביטקוין בעולם הקוונטי", נקבעה לתאריך 3 בנובמבר, בשעה 19:30 (התכנסות ב-19:00), במשרדי גוגל בתל אביב, מגדל אלקטרה, יגאל אלון 98, תל אביב. אתה ההרצאה יעביר ויטליק בוטרין, כותב ראשי של The Bitcoin Magazine. פרטים ואישור השתתפות: http://www.meetup.com/bitcoin-il/events/145566422/. |
|
|
|
Now, I know there will be heated debate if Bitcoin's birthday is 31st of October or January 3rd, but there's no reason not to celebrate both the whitepaper and the blockchain!
(The whitepaper is the real bitcoin)
Bitcoin is Bitcoin. It was conceived on Oct 31, it was born on Jan 3. |
|
|
|
It's not healthy for the ecosystem to have a few huge pools. However, a system such as Multi-PPS may make huge pools unneeded. |
|
|
|
I consider pooled mining to be a serious risk to Bitcoin's protocol.
Right now if the three biggest pool operators were to collude, it would be easy for them to simply agree never to mine on chains whose most recent block was not from one of them. They'd immediately (roughly) double their profits by cutting out all other miners. (AKA, a 51% attack).
But Bitcoin's design encourages this. There is only one block reward every ten minutes, and the odds of a user getting one in his lifetime are rapidly approaching nil. The only way to see a reasonably steady trickle of income is to join a mining pool. So people do. So we are all at risk on the decisions made by approximately any four out of six, or any three of the four biggest.
And it gets worse when bitcoin's block reward decreases. At that point you see major hashing power simply turning off and waiting for the next time the difficulty comes down far enough to make mining into a profitable use of electricity again, then jumping back in again. With mining pools, that can happen in huge chunks, making a 51% attack even more likely.
It's a design flaw that needs to be addressed at some point. I don't know how, but we should definitely try to make it better to mine individually than in a pool. Or at least, as good in the long run.
Cryddit
Multi-PPS solves this problem. (It's based on the smart miners already mentioned in this thread, and offers a way to decentralized the reward pooling agents.) |
|
|
|
There are different visions about what CC or MC should be used for. For me the main application is company stocks. These require trust in the company anyway, which will be established via traditional means, but it will spare the need to rely on cumbersome, centralized exchanges.
Real-World-Problem. How would you close the right to possess a company stock in cc / mc? You need someone owning it and giving you a contract that this coin represents this share ... edit: bitcoin' genius is to make the real-world-problem meaningless through mathematics, cause a bitcoin is not bound to anything in the real world, its just a bitcoin, its value doesn't depend on any contract or any item. cc and mc want to bind a coin to real-world-item, which sounds like a step backward The founders / traditional shareholders of the company authorize the color definition of course, and they reference and output of theirs as the genesis output. And they are then obligated to pay dividends to holders of the share coins, just like to holders of traditional shares. Yes, being detached from the real world gives Bitcoin its power, but it limits what it can do. You can use it as a currency and that's it. If you want decentralized digital representation of other assets, you need some real-world connection. |
|
|
|
None of them. Both try to fill a gap in the concept of a currency ... Bitcoin is not bound to any real asset like gold etc., mc and cc try to change this. But I doubt either this is necessary and both possible.
To be honest, I didn't understood none of them. I struggled some time to understand Bitcoin and think I reached some basic understanding. So, outside a little circle of advanced users neither of them will find people which gain enough trust through understanding to risk anything. Also I don't get it how you would reach a real connection between coins and assets which is trustworthy enough ...
Personally I like cc a little bit more, cause mc presented itself as "a chance similar to the first bitcoin-mining", which in my view appells too much to greed and naivity to be successfull.
There are different visions about what CC or MC should be used for. For me the main application is company stocks. These require trust in the company anyway, which will be established via traditional means, but it will spare the need to rely on cumbersome, centralized exchanges. Also, it is not clear to me that using Mastercoin will require having significant amounts of mastercoins.
Hey! we finally agree on something. I posted about this a few weeks ago. If I only have 10 mastercoins, presumably I can divide them each into 1 million pieces (or more) and enjoy use of the entire Mastercoin protocol and all the great functionality it brings on 10 different share issues for example. Since nobody will ever practically need more than 10 share issues, there is little or no point in owning more than just a few MSC. Indeed, owning only 1 is probably sufficient as they are practically infinitely divisible. J.R. hasn't commented on this point as far as I can tell. So now you understand one of the problems of MSC as an investment. If mastercoins aren't needed in large quantities to use Mastercoin, then the supply of mastercoins will far exceed their demand, meaning the value of mastercoins will be low - even if Mastercoin is successful. An issue which, by the way, I raised 2 months ago. I agree that JR should comment on that issue. |
|
|
|
I'm wondering if using the term "colored coins" confuses what they actually represent to the lay person. If they were called "tokenized bitcoins" it would be abvious to most, that the bitcoins represent something else of value. Turning a bitcoin into a token makes sense compared to coloring it.
Then the NGCCC can be a more user friendly and understandable: Bitcoin Tokenizer!  We use the "token" terminology often. However, "tokens" is the "what" - the goal is to have decentralized digital tokens representing arbitrary assets. "Colored coins" is the "how", it is the name of a specific approach to achieve it - which is to take coins (which is actually a technical term meaning UTXO) and "coloring" them, that is, making it possible to trace them. |
|
|
|
Am I correct in assuming that to use Mastercoins you have to use coins that originate from the genesis address whereas colored coins you can use any BTC you want? If so, will this keep Mastercoins value similar to BTC since a more available alternative is available through colored coins?
Well, not exactly. Colored coins are coins with a tx subgraph that traces back to a genesis output specific for a color, which can be chosen by the color issuer to be from any coins. But Mastercoin doesn't trace coins in that way. The bitcoins that are used for authorizing Mastercoin transactions don't need to trace to anything. However, only private keys that have sent funds to the Exodus address during issuing, or received mastercoins since, are recognized as having mastercoins they are able to send. Also, it is not clear to me that using Mastercoin will require having significant amounts of mastercoins. Mastercoin has momentum and funding. Coloredcoin does not.
Colored coins have funding, most notably a few 100's of BTC of bounties donated by eToro. |
|
|
|
So.... the time to check this way grows unboundedly with the number of transactions since the colored coin was created?
If this becomes a real problem, it may be solved with "re-genesis": sending an old colored coin back to the issuer for a new one. I think that by the time this is a problem, Bitcoin or an alt would be modified to natively support tag-based coloring, and then verifying a CC transaction will be as easy as verifying a Bitcoin transaction. Well, I have a fully workable solution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=253385.0 , but "there is no way in hell you are going to get a colored-coin-specific opcode included in Bitcoin"Peter is known as a vehement proponent of blockchain frugality, I wouldn't count his comment as authoritative. Currency is a special case of arbitrary assets. If there's no support to turn Bitcoin into a platform for decentralized digital arbitrary assets, we'll just have to create a new one based on the same principles. |
|
|
|
So.... the time to check this way grows unboundedly with the number of transactions since the colored coin was created?
If this becomes a real problem, it may be solved with "re-genesis": sending an old colored coin back to the issuer for a new one. I think that by the time this is a problem, Bitcoin or an alt would be modified to natively support tag-based coloring, and then verifying a CC transaction will be as easy as verifying a Bitcoin transaction. |
|
|
|
Unbelievable!
Finally something we can agree on. Unbelievable! 'vision and hard work of their proponents to move forward' This is why your project is going nowhere. There is another word for 'free' - it's 'worthless'.
No, it is well known that in the information age, there is a wide gap between something having value and being able to monetize it. If your people don't get paid - it's a hobby. There is no motivation to get it moving.
Fortunately, for some people the personal motivation structure is a bit more complicated than being just about getting monetary rewards. There's this well-known informational illustrated video made about a study showing that for tasks requiring higher cognitive functions, increasing the monetary reward degrades performance, but I forgot where to find it... Help anyone? EDIT: Here it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc'Open source' - of which Mastercoin is - doesn't necessitate poor funding models. "It's easier to raise funds for centralized services" - this is more crap from you. You are a crap nozzle. Being 'distributed' doesn't mean you can't raise funds. Mastercoin is distributed - it lives on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Your notion that you can't raise money because your colored coins is more 'distributed' than Mastercoin is rubbish. Bitcoin itself has a very clever excellent funding scheme - and of course it too is distributed. Bitcoin motivated thousands to set up mining nodes - by giving out coin.
Yes, Bitcoin gave out coin to incentivize its development... Over an effective time of 12 years. Do you think we'd all be here if Bitcoin issued all coins over 1 month, like Mastercoin did? No, issuing over 1 month means it's centralized, and we're not interested in a centralized currency. ...a real community philanthropist! Hahahaha. 'Doing it for the good of mankind'! Three cheers for you Meni. Now I am 100% sure colored coins is fully doomed - you are doing it for the good society. Have fun with that.
I didn't claim to do anything for the good of mankind. And yes, if it was just me doing colored coins, it would be doomed. Fortunately, it's not. Also, quit saying Mastercoin is 'ponzi'-ish 'get rich quick' scheme. This is just you being jealous that you didn't get involved early.
Ok, now I know you're not reading my comments. Happy trolling. |
|
|
|
Most mobile phone clients use SPV security. You probably can't have a comparably secure phone client for colored coins or Mastercoin.
Not true. Colored coins transaction validity is local, and therefore verification requires just the relevant tx subgraph, which is small. This means SPV clients can definitely work. What bounds the size of the relevant tx subgraph? I think I was wrong and you do not need to keep the entire UTXO index to validate colored coins. But you would need to keep a similar index for every utxo that bears a color you're interested in. I think this is what you mean by transaction subgraph. I don't know of an easy way to bound it, but as an SPV client you don't need to be aware of all transactions of your desired color. Only those that your output traces back to. |
|
|
|
managed to raise funding with promises of getting rich quick.
Total nonsense. It sounds like you are bitter that colored coins has no viable funding model. Open-source, decentralized platforms generally lack a good funding model. They rely on the vision and hard work of their proponents to move forward. It's easier to raise funds for centralized services, but those are just that - centralized services which should not be relied on at scale, just like the legacy financial system. So yes, it's unfortunate that a choice has to be made whether to do something good or to do something fast. But it's clear to me what the choice should be. We have a saying about driving recklessly - if you end up in a hospital, it doesn't matter how fast you get there. JR never wrote a word about 'get rich quick'.
You're right, he didn't say "quick". He certainly did try to convince people they'd get rich though. And he did design Mastercoin so that issuing is done over a month, as opposed to Bitcoin which is issued over many years. just because your pet project is dead on arrival.
Colored coins are alive and well, thank you for the concern. Colored coins are technically superior and based on a much stronger conceptual foundation.
More nonsense. Mastercoin has some less than perfect tricks - they are trying to find ways to clean those up. Colored coins are in fact technically inferior because they will never be able to support most of the functionality being build into Mastercoin protocol. You are unbelievable Meni. That's not being technically inferior, that's being less feature-rich. Are you going to continue to beat down Mastercoin merely because you missed the deadline to participate?
Funny. See this transaction? That's the second ever investment in Mastercoin (it was beat by 3 seconds to being the first). And it was sent by - you guessed it - none other than myself. I still keep those mastercoins. I made additional investments in Mastercoin, which I've since sold for a profit. Colored coins is dead. That project is finished and nobody is working on it.
No. It's just not being hyped as heavily as Mastercoin. If somebody does decide to waste some hours on it, they do not get paid nor benefit in any other fashion. It is merely a fun place to burn up a few hours while you are supposed to be doing real work. It uses the same non-profit model as all the other loser projects which are assured to make little or no progress. Colored coins is and always will be a mere hobby for people who love to waste time.
Real work = doing something meaningful. True, sometimes such efforts don't come with an immediate reward, but that is a price true visionaries are often willing to pay. Working on CC is much more beneficial to society than supporting Mastercoin. Mastercoin, if they crack a few more technical hurdles will be a very worthy and profitable project.
Good luck. I've just finished selling most of my MSC, why would I want to buy them now  Mastercoin made fantastic progress in the last month. Colored Coin - got a pretty video with a stupid mascot.
Colored coins has made steady progress for many months, and will hopefully continue to do so long after Mastercoin's 15 seconds of fame are forgotten. All in all, it saddens me that members of the Bitcoin community, who should appreciate decentralization over proprietary services, are so supportive of Mastercoin. |
|
|
|
A detailed comparison between Mastercoin and colored coins is available at http://w3.reddit.com/r/coloredcoin/comments/1o6yke/colored_coins_or_mastercoin/ccpgy0x. Colored coins are technically superior and based on a much stronger conceptual foundation. Mastercoin is more ambitious, aspiring to offer more features than colored coins. Colored coin proponents aim to develop a truly p2p platform, while Mastercoin is much more centralized and managed to raise funding with promises of getting rich quick. Neither Mastercoin nor colored coins support SPV security. You can't tell if you've received a payment unless you are running a full node and storing the entire index (extended with an additional index for the overlay coin). And storing/updating the additional index could be arbitrarily expensive, especially if you want to support many different colors.
Most mobile phone clients use SPV security. You probably can't have a comparably secure phone client for colored coins or Mastercoin.
Not true. Colored coins transaction validity is local, and therefore verification requires just the relevant tx subgraph, which is small. This means SPV clients can definitely work. Mastercoin, on the other hand, uses a message system for updating a global state, and thus does not support SPV. |
|
|
|
Within the context of Pub = Priv * G, what is Pub if Priv is zero? It looks to be undefined to me.
Elliptic curves form a group under point addition. As such they have an additive identity, which is the point at infinity. 0 * G is the identity of this group. Thanks! ([re]learn something new every day) So I corrected my post above and have a new question/comment regarding these posts: So if the private key 0 give us the Zero point on the curve Zero = 0 * G then 16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM is just the Bitcoin address calculated from the Zero point. I'll point out that I understand EC on real numbers better than on a finite field. I'm not sure exactly how the point at infinity would be represented and how it applies to our situation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
