The Open Transactions related topics in Alternative clients have been moved to the Project Development forum. This move is reasonable in itself, however the Project Development is much larger, and the OT related topics are getting lost easily. Can we please have a Open Transactions sub-forum within the Project Development forum. I am willing to moderate it. Otherwise, maybe a generic 'Software' sub-forum would work.  OT is unique, in that it it can claim none of the features of Bitcoin, but is extensible for many different applications. Some links/posts/comments need a repository for developers that are tying OT servers to altcoins or Bitcoin apps. |
|
|
|
I sent off some notes to MindToMa'ter(Adam) last night regarding possible roundtable discussion: Since it is Roundtable, then all inclusive views must be the watchword.
I have noticed in the past that simple tasks, such as an actual protocol, were loudly dissuaded from completion by the left-brain, pragmatist types who were seeking quick development of financial apps and not consensus of features. Mike Heath made me aware of the long list of features that are not standardized, yet known to a short list of key developers. Some developers spend months working on add-ons, only to find the new version of the client has deprecated key features. It is not Gavin's domain to develop the protocol so we should have a specific group to address protocol development and inclusion on the roundtable.
I am a researcher that was looking for Bitcoin before its inception. I found it in April 2010, while researching Ven and other solutions. I realize that coders/traders/financial marketers were all drawn to Bitcoin for various reasons. Their voices are valid and their motives apparent, but financial reward cannot be the only reason we bring to a roundtable. Many groups can separate and validate positions, then bring these views across the table. At the moment, all viewpoints are being equally shouted down by non-experts, shills, trolls and left bleeding on the forum floor. Roundtable by its nature seeks consensus first, then examination, then review and finally acceptance.
I suggest that actual rules of procedure be adopted to be completely "inclusive" of all potential views/domains/expertise/charter. TLDR; Inclusiveness without denigration of topic/idea. |
|
|
|
|
So here is a thought experiment:
If Max convinces large regulatory groups to try to implement this idea as a solution to the "bitcoin" problem. By the time they figure out that it is impossible due to the decentralized nature, we will have several more 100's of THz to contend with.
Well played, Max. Well played.
|
|
|
|
|
I discovered Bitcoin in its infancy, April 2010. I watched it mature past the first media reviews and subsequent turmoil. I approach Bitcoin from a theorist point of view, so many ideals held up by the core developers and early adopters I can appreciate and uphold. I was stymied from some crucial early development of my own application due to changes in the software and lack of standardization of the protocol. I realize media cares little of these points of contention, but it does point to deeper truths being held by several key developers that wish for less "revealing" information being doled out.
Theorists have no seat at the table because anything other than "the" bitcoin client - shadowy unknowns and possible future(?) is beyond discussion. IRC chat is promoted but shelved as irrelevant. Then the trolls, shills, belligerent others are allowed equal voice, thereby muddying the conversation and exasperating many.
Media comment sections are no stranger to this disease. We are skilled to see through the fog - regardless of positions held but often leave this uncooperative group for other forums. Media may find a chorus of "Legion" and never return due to incoherent noise and packaged "responses" I know I have not bothered with bitcointalk.org or bitcoin.org for many months at a time, returning briefly in hope of a change in climate. We have a group of professionals present now that won't be kowtowed into shoutdowns or misdirection.
I like it. I like it, alot!
|
|
|
|
After reading many posts in this forum, it's clear there is some dissent in the community regarding the nature, mission and true purpose of the bitcoin foundation. As a community, what do you feel we should focus on?
Getting the technical weaknesses fixed. Technical problems: - Transaction fees are a mess. It needs to evolve into an auction-like system with multiple bids.
- The memory pool is a mess. Some developers seem to want to stifle development of a transaction bidding system, because they're afraid that some merchants no longer be able to use the memory pool as an "IOU messaging" (check account) system. There seems to be a misguided effort to prevent "multiple bids", but what about anti-DOS measures for the messaging scheme?
The 2nd bullet point also seems to be a political/greed problem. If someone, say, Satoshi Dice (or whatever other service) wants to use IOUs (aka: unconfirmed or zero-confirmation transactions) in lieu of real transactions, they would have to find alternatives if the memory pool started holding multiple copies of the same transaction but with different fees attached. There's also the issue of a protocol: - The lack of a protocol makes it hard to visualise Bitcoin's overall structure.
- Some developers keep making the excuse that the 'reference' software is the protocol, but they are mistaken. When they decide that the reference software has a bug, what are they referring to in order to make that determination? Hmm? As always seems to be the case (I've seen these things happen at workplaces, too), they've got some version of 'Bitcoin' neatly modelled inside their head, and either enjoy the power (or are stuck) as a go-to person who understands the spaghetti code. I'm sick of it! Perhaps one reason why a protocol still hasn't been written is that it would make it too easy to create a new generation of alt-coins? They seem scared that it would hit them in the pocket!
|
|
|
|
|
Adam,
Since it is Roundtable, then all inclusive views must be the watchword.
I have noticed in the past that simple tasks, such as an actual protocol, were loudly dissuaded from completion by the left-brain, pragmatist types who were seeking quick development of financial apps and not consensus of features. Mike Heath made me aware of the long list of features that are not standardized, yet known to a short list of key developers. Some developers spend months working on add-ons, only to find the new version of the client has deprecated key features. It is not Gavin's domain to develop the protocol so we should have a specific group to address protocol development and inclusion on the roundtable.
I am a researcher that was looking for Bitcoin before its inception. I found it in April 2010, while researching Ven and other solutions. I realize that coders/traders/financial marketers were all drawn to Bitcoin for various reasons. Their voices are valid and their motives apparent, but financial reward cannot be the only reason we bring to a roundtable. Many groups can separate and validate positions, then bring these views across the table. At the moment, all viewpoints are being equally shouted down by non-experts, shills, trolls and left bleeding on the forum floor. Roundtable by its nature seeks consensus first, then examination, then review and finally acceptance.
I suggest that actual rules of procedure be adopted to be completely "inclusive" of all potential views/domains/expertise/charter.
Just a thought.
FF
|
|
|
|
|
I just went back and reread the Magnum Opus from last year. I noticed that many people designing the core program were not as favorable, too many new ideas. I remember Satoshi wanting swarming clients as far back as December 2010. That would be a great place to start the project for voting system. I sent a PM with my notes from that time frame.
|
|
|
|
...
This allows prices to be confidently denominated in MasterCoin. The currency actually used to pay debt is irrelevant, since all compatible coins are made fungible.
Any thoughts?
I may have misunderstood but it seems that when you boil it down to its essence what you are talking about is a decentralized cryptocoin exchange. A decentralized cryptocoin exchange would be very helpful indeed. Anon136, we have been here a long time... remember $0.11? We also know that Satoshi originally intended lots and lots of competing *coins. These are all based on competitive systems, vying for the same "Master", Lord of the Coin, if you will. There is another form of value that everyone fails to acknowledge, you need to step back from economics and monetary-based systems and remember the precursors of money. It's a Trust system that can validate the honesty of the vendor/buyer instantaneously. That is what never got finished. Bytecoin is exactly what Satoshi wanted. Landscape, territory for these *coins to explore/evolve in. We don't all have to be coders/miners, they can be single-minded - brilliantly single-minded, but the opening of *coins is needed. It gives something for us "non-coders" something to discuss. Have you ever wondered why the Bitcoin protocol was never completed? Competition begins @home. |
|
|
|
I have no intention of going further with this on this form, If it threatens the existence of Bitcoin.
Just seeing if someone saw this angle or not, It's nutty!! Satoshi coded Democracy right into the program!
Several people have started what we term BitX applications. Based on Bitcoin but not angled towards money. Certain hurdles remain, but we are confident. BitDNS/Namecoin/Bitmessage all work or are being worked on. I'm glad you have brought this back and your enthusiasm is needed. I don't think this could harm Bitcoin... the devs/miners/theorists are laser-eyed to the prize. It's just nice to see all the other opportunities that Bitcoin-style engines offer. Kinda makes your head explode with the niche opportunities available requiring WoT systems. Canadian, not you are? https://www.coinforum.ca |
|
|
|
|
We have always been aware of this. The devs on this forum are preoccupied with the monetary angle. The fine details for what you are proposing should be taken off-forum and discussed on IRC. If you do plan on going further with this, please PM me with the details.
FF
|
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out which sockpuppetry Grue belongs to?
I met a Grue, "Said how do you do?"
Said, "How do you do, too?"
To which I replied, "Fine by you."
Not so true, Grue.
If by inferring Grue not true,
Could Grue still be true to you?
Perhaps it is not Grue by GNU,
Or Grue by U?
But grew by Grue that rings true.
Time flew, "Must be going, Grue."
Uncomfortable pause grew...
Grue knew that apart from that,
Grue had to know that,
Time flew, glad that,
Moving past,
Uncomfortable moment, thought,
"Well, that's enough of that!"
FF
^ This, is a perfect example of a post with no real clear contribution to the thread, yet is not "^^" or "+/-1". Good for laughs though lol. I study at the school of Dr. Suess' Vocabulary Literations |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out which sockpuppetry Grue belongs to?
I met a Grue, "Said how do you do?"
Said, "How do you do, too?"
To which I replied, "Fine by you."
Not so true, Grue.
If by inferring Grue not true,
Could Grue still be true to you?
Perhaps it is not Grue by GNU,
Or Grue by U?
But grew by Grue that rings true.
Time flew, "Must be going, Grue."
Uncomfortable pause grew...
Grue knew that apart from that,
Grue had to know that,
Time flew, glad that,
Moving past,
Uncomfortable moment, thought,
"Well, that's enough of that!"
FF
|
|
|
|
|
This is , , , creepy...
I will now go wash... brain... ewww...
|
|
|
|
Can anyone make an introduction for me to some of the older members? I'd like to interview them about the history of the Bitcoin.
There is no "the Bitcoin", it is simply Bitcoin. When used to refer to the blockchain, protocol or underlying technology it is referred to as Bitcoin (upper case 'B'). When referring to the value of the currency then it is referred to as bitcoin or bitcoins (lower case 'b') like one would refer to dollars with a lower case 'd'. I'll introduce you to Elwar! Usually whatever is rising/falling is due directly to Elwar!  Can take/give a joke too! |
|
|
|
Knightsmb making people crap their pants with his screen shot.
I was hoping if you could explain this? I never heard of such a thing before. The screenshot of the drop from $28 to $0.01 after the MtGOX hack. Not to be outdone by the Cosby Caper hack of bitcointalk. Salt them hashes boys! |
|
|
|
|
Hi Charles,
Just to let you know that the history of Bitcoin has precursors, so if you wish to include mention of it, it could be an avenue of study for those who want deeper insight.
I have noticed distinct differences between the left-brain logical thinkers, who delve on the more immediate, and the right-brained theorist who come from other disciplines and backgrounds. Usually the hardcore group wants to know what it is, what it can do for me, how to best use/develop it, and disregard the other, less pragmatic types.
The right-brained theorists are valid and often prescient in their pronouncements of trends but carry little credence on direction or development.
Check out early postings by Hal or Satoshi and the rogue beginnings of cryptocurrency. If you need links or short explainers, there are many here to help.
FF
PS. good job on the videos!
|
|
|
|
Is there a word for a bubble that keeps popping but never dies?
S curveInteresting choice of words, "S curve." That is exactly what I was looking for when I discovered Bitcoin in April 2010. Disruptive Technology with the caveat of creating a more stable, robust monetary standard. How interesting looking back - how much more interesting looking forward! |
|
|
|
|
This was the troll-pile from June 11-19, 2011 or the Cosby Caper compromise? Did we not narrow the culprits down to SA or other known affiliates?
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering what ever happened to all those sockpuppet castoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
#CNN reporting "Date in Title Missing!"
- can we confirm this?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
