|
I want to mention that native colored coins require a hard fork. The advantage of a native colored coin is the security and that you don't need to download the entire block chain (you can have a SPV client).
The Counterparty approach gets you the exchange capabilities, plus the 'colored coin' functionality (aka Assets). It does not require a hard fork, only an upgrade to the latest client. There is still the issue of the pools accepting this client.
We can always migrate the Counterparty assets to the native colored coins in the future.
So it really is not a choice of one over the other.
Also the concept of a 'meta coin' is really arbitrary. You can define one with its own distribution mechanism. You can define as many as you want. The creation of the Counterparty port in fact does not even require one to be defined up front! A 'meta coin' is just another asset.
As far as pegging or floating a value, it is just like any currency, you can choose to peg it to another or you can have it float in an exchange. None of this is really built into the protocol.
|
|
|
|
@Friction So no meta-coins? Well if you can get it to work I suppose that would be fine. jamaer brought up a good point about orders. How do you do orders without a meta-coin? There is implied escrowing with orders to keep both sides honest. What if someone submits an order with 5 IXC in their wallet, then moves the 5 IXC to another wallet before the order is filled? Does the order just not occur? Does it get canceled immediately when the 5 IXC gets moved?
Let me give an example: how do you plan to implement escrow for IXC (in orders, bets etc.)? XCP is simply a protocol currency, so in the original Counterparty it's simple to do, but IXC is a blockchain currency so the same does not work (as miners need to accept each transaction). So if I want to give 5 IXC for a particular asset, what happens to my IXC while a match is looked for? If a match is found, how those 5 IXC is moved to the previous asset owner?
No need for *a* meta-coin. Anyone can create their own asset. So the foundation can create its own asset that has a 1:1 backing with IXC. You can create an order with IXC. There is just an additional step to pay the IXC. It is just like making an order with BTC using Counterparty. If you want to exchange other alt-coins (i.e. BTC, LTC etc) then you use what is called a 'proxy coin'. Essentially a party provides a 'vending' capability where you exchange say BTC for proxy BTC coins ( let's call those IX-BTC). The IXBTC can then be held in escrow using the order or bet functionality. The equivalent of a counterparty coin would be an IX-IXC. So someone can essentially setup a vending service for alt coins that converts say LTC to IX-LTC for trading. Essentially it is a distributed decentralized exchange. So really what happens now is the creation of trusted parties that vouch for the specific asset. However the actual trading is done in a decentralized manner. So, here is the scenario, you want to buy Gold with BTC. You have a gold bullion vendor that exchanges one ounce of gold for 1 IX-GLD. You have another vendor that exchanges 1 BTC for 1 IX-BTC. A party that want to buy gold makes an buy order for say 3 IX-BTC in exchange for IX-GLD. The buyer gets a match from an existing sell order. The quantities are exchange. The seller redeems his IX-BTC at the BTC vendor. The buyer redeems his IX-GLD at the gold bullion vendor. In no event does the exchange have posession of the BTC or Gold. Only trusted vendors have real ownership. |
|
|
|
Does this have a different implementation from the original specification? |
|
|
|
How can we use Counterparty to increase the value of IXC if IXCP is not pegged to it? Well for reasons mentioned above, I think pegging the two could actually have the opposite effect on IXC. But, the true value of Counterparty to iXcoin is it essentially turns the iXcoin blockchain into a peer-to-peer exchange. That in itself will increase the value of IXC for several reasons. First, when someone wants to start a new Counterparty asset they must use IXC to do it. There are not an infinite number of CP assets that can be created because there aren't an infinite number of IXC, so there will be competition for IXC to create new assets. Second, all those people who have CP assets in the iXcoin blockchain will have a vested interest in ensuring iXcoin prospers. I believe they will also have an inclination to buy iXcoin. Third, the number of transactions in the IXC blockchain will increase tremendously as more new CP assets are created. As transactions go up, so does miner interest. More miners (or at least the retention of miners) mean a more secure blockchain and therefore more customers wanting to start new CP assets. Other cryptos which are only cryptos and nothing else won’t be able to compete with iXcoin and all its other assets and functionality. I know this is hard to quantify, but if you look at a crypto with a market cap of $1 million, and iXcoin with the same $1 million market cap plus $100 million in total CP assets which would you be more likely to invest in? Which is undervalued? Which is more likely to have the support to survive longer into the future?
If you listened to the audio broadcast that I posted, it should be clear that an IXCP is only needed for the betting functionality. IXCP is essentially what they call a 'proxy coin'. To implement this, the foundation can just create a asset that buys and sells IXC at a 1:1 rate. That is all that is needed, no complicated burning process is needed. The reason I propose that a proportional number of IXC is spent when you issue a new currency (similar to how it is done with colored coin and not counterparty/mastercoin) is that is ties demand to IXC. In addition, I think it is more secure, you can't create billions of assets with zero-cost. |
|
|
|
It seems like what ever wasn't fucked up by the manufacturer was fucked up by whoever was fixing their case issues or their assembly staff in general.
Do you even see a solution that could be easily fixed given their situation? Or are the current run of boards a complete loss. I'm betting IMET has put a lien on AMT property if they are claiming non-payment which would further complicate matters. Though they must have some cash reserves if they are funding a run of the tecnobit boards.
I'm just looking not to get fucked because of their mismanagement of the company.
The Bitmine boards clearly have a problem as evidence by the difficulty of shipping by Bitmine. However, Bitmine designs are at least know to be functional in the field. AMT could ship technobit boards but if you look at pricing one 8 chip 240GHs board cost $380. So $5500 worth should equate to around 14 boards.... about 3.6 THs worth. The depreciation of these miners are utterly crazy and that is why even a minor slip in shipment times can have devastating consequences. AMT is late by over 2 months. That is why a full refund may be the only remedy to make us whole. |
|
|
|
Random thoughts on A1 board packaging & cooling. Can anyone give me outside dims on the current blades? I assume thickness is 1/2" (the caps) and a bit more for the pcb. Say total of 5/8". Don't care about any heatsink thicknesses.
Been kicking this around: ya know with liquid cooling done right using cold plates I can see putting 14 or more of the current 8 chip boards in a 4U rack case with a 1U high PSU bank on top...
Thermals not an issue for any component and if can fit more chips on same size board - cool. Should help OC as well until com or other issues arise.
Hmm. if the A1 chips get cheap enough might play a bit with some help from here...
A1 going rate is about $40+ The Bitmine and AMT prices are complete bogus. You can tell what the price should really be looking at technobit price . |
|
|
|
I'm sure we can find a win-win situation for everyone..
I'd like to know what is the problem with my spin-off IXCP idea? Like I said, too complicated to implement. Too complicated as in too many lines of code or we'll never find or implement the right solution? We should find the best solution and if that solution requires too much work we have to try and find additional help. We shouldn't dismiss the best idea cause it requires too much programming. We seem to have 3, maybe 4 experienced coders here now. Let's figure out the best solution and how much labor exactly it would take to code and then we can figure out the best way to break it up and get it done. The idea on an IXCP is completely not necessary. Counterparty already has a mechanism to handle the native currency (see: BTCPay). What I want to do is to tie the creation of new assets to the use of IXC. So that if you wanted to create 1 million shares, you need to spend 100 IXC to do so. Without this kind of 'conservation of money', then adding this new capability to perform exchanges and possibly perform better will not increase the value of IXC. This is very similar to the ColoredCoin concept in that you can't create new coins without allocating native coins. |
|
|
|
the bet functionality does not make sense because what determines a winning bet?
Oh dear, have you even read the protocol specification? What do you think "broadcast" is for? Anyhow, that comment probably tells everyone your level of expertise. but what and who determines the value of the broadcast? in short, how can anyone trust a broadcast? you still have not explained why we need a 'meta-coin'. You keep claiming its necessary, but from my analysis, there's absolutely no need. Like I said, Counterparty as a coin is absolutely worthless, the implementation is valuable but you don't need the coin. The math don't lie. Essentially, the implementation just gets rids of the absurdity and uses a blockchain that is not hostile to it. |
|
|
|
|
I got a question that may have been explained prior.
How does counterparty prevent double spending of assets?
|
|
|
|
Explain to the audience in this thread why a 'meta coin' is necessary? Why does a new coin need to be implemented?
It was already explained when this whole discussion started: you need to escrow funds for the bets etc. The very same reason why your original "native IXC" porposal is not working. any user defined asset can be escrowed! the bet functionality does not make sense because what determines a winning bet? it only make sense with regards to "orders". If "orders" is what you are refering to as "escrow" funds, then it works perfectly fine with a native currency. I can create two user defined currencies A and B, and both can be exchanged with A, B and IXC. There is no need to create an extra MIXC. In fact, the foundation can issue assets that are redeemable into IXC. This is done very simply by creating a sell order of the asset every time a buy order is fulfilled. |
|
|
|
The primary difference between Counterparty and the IXC implementation is that the issue requires an equivalent IXC fee. The fee is to be either "burned" or "donated" to the foundation.
And why would anyone use such an implementation? If someone likes your version of "Counterparty" (actually, stripped dows such that it truely is equivalent to a poor man's ColoredCoins), they can simply fork you code and start their own "Counterparty" without any fees. Why do you keep proposing these dead ideas? To satisfy not-so-technically-advanced community members that donated to your bounty? How many times does it need mentioning that Counterparty has issues if Bitcoin wants to squash it. Bitcoin has reduced the OP_RETURN opcode to accept 40 bytes instead of the original 80 bytes. They did this to precisely squash counterparty. Anyone certainly can fork their own "Counterparty", but what benefit is that for them? For 1 million shares of an asset it costs only 100 IXC. Do you think they would go through all the trouble of creating a fork and distributing this fork to people who want to buy their asset? The whole idea of this is to create additional value for IXC. Maybe you don't get it at all! |
|
|
|
The more that I think about this, there is no need for a meta-coin!
Here are the following messages:
•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn
Oh, and now you "suddenly invented" that there is no need for meta-coin in ColoredCoins ... Yes, as I originally thought (and got side tracked by this discussion of meta-coins) that there is no need for a "meta-coin". Oh really. Even it was said even this very same thread that the primary difference between Counterparty and ColoredCoins is that Counterparty requires a meta-coin and ColoredCoins does not, and the price being paid for the latter is that certain things like the ones you striked out above can not be implemented. Anyhow, I'm now convinced that if anything useful on this front will be implemented for Ixcoin, it is not coming from you. I don't see any point on continuing discussions on these matters with you any longer. I wish the rest of the bounty payers are happy with whatever you will provide. I think you are making a lot of accusations that have no merit. Broadcast and Bet are removed from now since they have too many issues. The dividend feature may however be implemented. I think you are just muddy the waters with the idea that a 'meta coin' is even necessary. Explain to the audience in this thread why a 'meta coin' is necessary? Why does a new coin need to be implemented? |
|
|
|
What is going to happen in 27 hours? https://www.coinprism.com/The colored show is gonna start? To me Colored Coins makes more sense. I don't think coinprism implementation is available to the public. "Colored Coins" implementation is a bit convoluted and there is no built in exchange mechanism. CounterParty implementation is extremely simple. Mastercoin is probably the best implementation, however I have to verify if the distributed exchange capability is available. |
|
|
|
The more that I think about this, there is no need for a meta-coin!
Here are the following messages:
•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn
Oh, and now you "suddenly invented" that there is no need for meta-coin in ColoredCoins ... Yes, as I originally thought (and got side tracked by this discussion of meta-coins) that there is no need for a "meta-coin". All user defined coins are 'meta-coin', so there is no need for a 'special' one. There is no need to maintain a balance with this 'special' coin with respect to IXC since there is no real value in this 'special' coin (unless of course we devise one). |
|
|
|
|
The more that I think about this, there is no need for a meta-coin!
Here are the following messages:
•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn
Not all CounterParty messages are implemented. Particulary the Broadcast, Bet and Dividend functionality which requires further analysis.
There will be no "burn" message, only an "issue" message. The primary difference between Counterparty and the IXC implementation is that the issue requires an equivalent IXC fee. The fee is to be either "burned" or "donated" to the foundation. The fee will be determined by the foundation. Example, .0001 IXC per asset. So if a party requires 1 million shares created, then 100 IXC will be required to be burned or donated. In short, it is up to the asset issuer to decide if they want to donate to the foundation or not.
What the "issue" message does is for anyone to create ones own asset. The "order" message allows user to exchange assets.
All transactions will of course require the standard IXC fee.
|
|
|
|
I'm sure we can find a win-win situation for everyone..
I'd like to know what is the problem with my spin-off IXCP idea? Like I said, too complicated to implement. |
|
|
|
And I also like his multi-sig idea for the burned coins where the foundation redistributes them. 50% charity and 50% for promoting IXC also sounds fair and good.
This will dilute the value of metacoin as there is no limit on number of metacoins. The same IXCs can be used again and again to create new metacoins. Why would anyone then want to use IXC counterparty when you could get the same functionality from the original Counterparty or Mastercoin (riding on a top of bitcoin network) without such a problem? To make the point again, the value of the IXC counterparty coin is not the major concern here. Heck, the value can be zero for the meta-coin. Why would anyone use IXC counterparty instead of the original counterparty? Because it works in IXC and does not work in Bitcoin! What we are trying to do here is to create a port that will increase the utility of IXC. I am not sure why you are objecting to pegging the value of meta-IXC with the value of IXC. What is wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Let's not try to muddle the goals here. The goal is to increase the usage and as a consequence the value of IXC.
Exactly. We aren't interested in some other meta-coin that has its own valuation. We want the valuation of the meta-coin to correspond to the value of IXC.
Yes, that is why the metacoin is valuated through the exchange with IXC. That's done through the trade within the Counterparty protocol. What is the relative exchange rate between IXC and the metacoin makes no difference to the value of IXC which is valuated externaly. Understand that the value of cryptocurrencies is that there is a cost for moving electrons. Email for example has next to no cost to send out, that's why there is a spamming problem. With crypto-currencies, there is always a cost for any transaction. Bitcoin in fact banned the small transactions like satoshidice because they regard spamming as a problem. Bitcoin also dislikes the use of Mastercoin and Counterparty because they ride on the Bitcoin block chain without paying the appropriate toll.
Well if Counterparty or equivalent want to ride on the IXC network, then they should also pay a similar 'toll'. What I am proposing is that they pay a toll. Not true on many counts. First, they are paying exactly the same 'toll' as everyone else, the miners fee. Second, I don't think you can speak for "bitcoin". Third, you have not proposed anything about a 'toll' (i.e. a cost for Counterparty transactions themselves). What you are proposing now, after it turned out that you original plan (IXC as native coin) was impossible and your second plan (burning) was disliked by many, a (non-workable =1:1 exchange) centralized metacoin. It begins to look to me that you are not really interested in making the best possible solution for IXCoin but instead you seem to want to simply minimize your work in order to just collect your bounty. For those with less technical/coding understanding: implementing Counterparty with "burn" (or "donate") functionality requires only very minor changes to existing Counterparty code. I've looked at your proposal and to be honest, it is complexity that is unecessary. How is creating a meta-coin that is not pegged to the price of IXC supposed to help IXC? Maintaining a snapshot of all the coins in the past for every client is a prohibitively expensive solution. The IXC native coin is a complete different implementation that will require a hard fork. The Counterparty implementation is an easy implementation that only requires the latest client. This was the original proposal and I think people do seem to like the 'donate' functionality over the 'burn' functionality. It is almost identical in implementation, the only major difference is figuring out how best to re-distribute donations. This I proposed as having a perpetual sell order where meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC. |
|
|
|
A permanent order will be setup to sell IXC in exchange for metacoin.
How is that funded if the foundation is using IXC for bounties and exchange rate is 1:1? How can I be sure that the foundation is committed to the order, i.e., someone will actually sign the transaction (IXC -> me) when I want to exchange my metacoins? The reason why the metacoin is pegged at a fixed rate with IXC is that we want IXC value to increase as the counterparty network becomes more useful.
How is that different from a free exchange? If the counterparty network becomes more useful, people will pay more IXCs for the metacoin => demand for IXCs increases. The problem with both counterparty and mastercoin is that it only takes a fraction of a coin to perform what it needs to do, moving 100 assets as compared to 100,000,000,000 assets costs the same.
Why is that a problem and to whom? From IXC network point of view moving 100 assets is equivalent to moving 10^8 assets and it is paid the same. In short if 2X = Y = 500Z, then by simple algebra, X,Y and Z are all zero.
I think you should go back to Math 101. Let's not try to muddle the goals here. The goal is to increase the usage and as a consequence the value of IXC. We aren't interested in some other meta-coin that has its own valuation. We want the valuation of the meta-coin to correspond to the value of IXC. That is why, I am proposing mechanism that always ties the meta-coin to a fixed value of IXC. Understand that the value of cryptocurrencies is that there is a cost for moving electrons. Email for example has next to no cost to send out, that's why there is a spamming problem. With crypto-currencies, there is always a cost for any transaction. Bitcoin in fact banned the small transactions like satoshidice because they regard spamming as a problem. Bitcoin also dislikes the use of Mastercoin and Counterparty because they ride on the Bitcoin block chain without paying the appropriate toll. Well if Counterparty or equivalent want to ride on the IXC network, then they should also pay a similar 'toll'. What I am proposing is that they pay a toll. Last remark, IXC is so cheap that even a 1:1 to the metacoin isn't a significant burden to anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
