I can only hope that at some point you will realize this has nothing to do with cryptography.
I didn't notice this. Yes, I do know that p2p has nothing to do with cryptography. But it's essential for decentralized cryptocurrency. he's just got some bone to pick, I would ignore him. You can ignore me as much as you please, just don't fuck the users with this broken tool you are planning. Hope you read the previous link. a Browser based Cryptocurrency client would have similar security considerations. Do you even understand why cryptocat moved to a plugin model ? Gosh, you are hopeless. I'm leaving you alone now. if you have such a rich background in javascript based crypto browser security, why don't you tell us who you are so we can review your past accomplishments? |
|
|
|
ah, Reddit! another great oracle of wisdom and truth. Made me lol  Seriously though, Mastercoin seems like quite a big project. I don't see why people shouldn't talk about it  They are all very upset that JR quickly funded and got people working on something interesting that they have been kicking around these forums for years. They are the non-participating naysayers. Now that the bus left the station without them, they only sit around kicking the tires hoping the bus will crash. But their hopes will have no effect whatever whether or not the bus actually does crash. They just know they aren't on the bus and they wish they had $2million in the bank to advance their code. In one simple word: jealousy The only thing that I can make out clearly about this project is something along the lines of : BUY MASTERCOIN NOW! Elsewhere David A. Johnston is telling me that I should write a Distributed Exchange for them? Meanwhile other people are telling IBM execs that they have a distributed exchange? Seems that investors are just desperate to throw money at anything these days. This thing is like a retarded Flooz.com minus Whoopi Goldberg. We're up to 2 million now? I thought it was .5 million? Where is this thing incorporated? So you're writing open source code for the public that does what exactly? nothing about this project is clear, everything about this project is sketchy. Mastercoin pls go. They raised a few thousand bitcoins in August for the project. I was a contributor (with bitcoin) as I really like the idea. So yes, the higher the BTC rate the more money they have in the bank. A couple million dollars now. Pretty impressive and it's more then I could say for any alt-coin. Still MasterCoin fans should be in a separate corner for mentally retarded. The only way to incorporate multiple currency is the way Ripple does it - with established gateways. "Distributed exchange" is an obvious fiction. It doesn't mean of course that some people won't get rich. They already are:-) unfortunately the Mastercoin people have bastardized the term 'Distributed Exchange'. I wrote up a technical spec for a Distributed Exchange quite some time ago. The core algorithm was published before Mastercoin started. The technology does multiple currencies without any XRP like carrier units. It's also very similar to Bitcoin in structure. http://goo.gl/x1e8jV |
|
|
|
I can only hope that at some point you will realize this has nothing to do with cryptography.
I didn't notice this. Yes, I do know that p2p has nothing to do with cryptography. But it's essential for decentralized cryptocurrency. he's just got some bone to pick, I would ignore him. You can ignore me as much as you please, just don't fuck the users with this broken tool you are planning. Hope you read the previous link. this project offers client side encryption for Gmail and it works completely in the web browser: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mymail-crypt-for-gmail/jcaobjhdnlpmopmjhijplpjhlplfkhbaa Browser based Cryptocurrency client would have similar security considerations. keep trolling... |
|
|
|
I can only hope that at some point you will realize this has nothing to do with cryptography.
I didn't notice this. Yes, I do know that p2p has nothing to do with cryptography. But it's essential for decentralized cryptocurrency. he's just got some bone to pick, I would ignore him. |
|
|
|
Doesnt this have the same problem as ripple? How do you assign confidence. I believe pragmatically ripple is assigning confidence based on external business relationships with gateways.
the fact that the Issuers MUST HONOR THE LEDGER TO REIMBURSE, I disagree with that as the main assmption and use case. Most share trading is done via buying and selling, not via redemption (share buy-backs). I made some more elaborated comments on this thread you pointed to now about the additional value PoW provides for shares: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220155.new;topicseen#newIt's a subtle difference in requirements that results in a major change in architecture.
I encourage re-examining requirements, its a habit of mine also, and that is often how improvements are made. However I think you maybe missed some use cases for PoW/block chain security in share trading. Adam a thorough reply is at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220155.new;topicseen#newwhat use cases would that be? |
|
|
|
I would double check all your assumptions here. The problem of connecting two people behind NAT is non-trivial. I think what this article is talking about is a simple Browser API for connecting to other people who are connected to the server. You haven't taken the server out of the equation, although you might hide some of the complexities of this arrangement.
http://webrtchacks.com/an-intro-to-webrtcs-natfirewall-problem/I can only hope that at some point you will realize this has nothing to do with cryptography.  Crypto is part of the problem, interacting with the p2p network is another. Seems that the javascript crypto space is inhabited by various individuals hacking out their own ideas and not much organization or collaboration, which is strange because browser-based crypto is very commonly requested by the development community. |
|
|
|
have you worked much with WebRTC?
Not much, just played a little. This tech is still too raw. I was looking at this also: http://www.pjsip.org/pjnath/docs/html/it's a Java library that uses the same set of protocols for NAT traversal as WebRTC. |
|
|
|
I would double check all your assumptions here. The problem of connecting two people behind NAT is non-trivial. I think what this article is talking about is a simple Browser API for connecting to other people who are connected to the server. You haven't taken the server out of the equation, although you might hide some of the complexities of this arrangement.
http://webrtchacks.com/an-intro-to-webrtcs-natfirewall-problem/that is very interesting, thanks. I might actually use this in my project. have you worked much with WebRTC? |
|
|
|
The only thing I can take from that is that you seriously confusing WebRTC with something else. The website is at http://www.webrtc.org/ the first paragraph is: WebRTC is a free, open project that enables web browsers with Real-Time Communications (RTC) capabilities via simple Javascript APIs. Anyone interested in using crypto knows that webrtc has no role into this. No, that's u who confuses WebRTC with something else. Look at the beginning of this article - http://www.pubnub.com/blog/making-peer-data-connections-in-the-browser-with-webrtc/. Sending data between two users in today’s browser world is a tough process with JavaScript. Most developers rely on using a server as the middle man to send data to another user. This means setting up server technology that can handle this, as well as paying for scaling and bandwidth for all of your users. The fix for this problem is taking the shortest route between two users; commonly known as the WebRTC Peer Connection. The WebRTC Peer Connection makes a direct connection between two browsers so they can pass data between them. I would double check all your assumptions here. The problem of connecting two people behind NAT is non-trivial. I think what this article is talking about is a simple Browser API for connecting to other people who are connected to the server. You haven't taken the server out of the equation, although you might hide some of the complexities of this arrangement. |
|
|
|
I too find the hype around mastercoin to be distracting and off-putting.
They're turning this forum into something like the Las Vegas Strip. |
|
|
|
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Possible? Impossible? Impractical? Just plain dumb? Brilliant? ... just thought I would gather some general input on this idea.
Possible. Add http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/ to the list. interesting. Interesting and useless for the purposes of this topic. Browsers won't even implement websockets properly in an uniform way (which is also pretty close to pointless here, do you want an interesting link for that too?), webrtc will take a good amount of years to become a standard. No need to become a standard. Anyone interested in using crypto can download a browser that supports WebRTC if their soft doesn't support it already. right, if you could do this for one major browser that would be a big accomplishment. HTML5 is pretty solid at this point, so I dont think theres much wiggly things there. |
|
|
|
Is there a online repository for this? You think java is the best fit for the protocol/daemon itself? No not yet, I will announce though when it's released. It will be open source with one of the well accepted FLOSS licenses(haven't decided which one yet). I like Java because that's what they use in Finance, it's the most useful language, and they have well validated Crypto libraries. Also it runs on virtually any platform, it's fast, and lots of people know how to use it. You will be able to build a trader bot quite easily in Python though. Do you think Java would be an issue? -bm I have to admit I don't like the idea of using java at the lowest level. With its virtual machine requirement and the binary blob most users is running on Windows. The whole thing just smells bad. On the other hand it might attract quite a few developers. And is is a very productive language imo. Personally I think Go, or even C, is a good fit. C might even attract some good developers as well. That said, its not a big deal. I'll probably play around making a prototype in Go if the whitepaper solves the different issues well  C is a horrible platform for this. The crypto libraries are notoriously difficult to support on many platforms. Most financial devs use Java. Most of the current financial world is running Java with a small amount of Python. The legacy code is mainly C/C++ and some other relics like COBOL. Java is pretty easy to manage and practically anyone can install it on their machine with a few clicks. I will post here when things are approachable for the general public. Thanks for your interest. -bm |
|
|
|
To understand what Confidence Chains means you have to revisit some of the initial design goals of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was meant to be a currency without backing and without ownership. Color Coins and other related technologies have a different purpose: digital vouchers(although Confidence Chains does much more than that). Thus, you've removed ZERO TRUST. You must trust the backer. The idea of leaving in Proof Of Work anyway is just meaningless really and reflects a lack of vision as to why it was there in the first place. The core oversight is that the block chain is a free database that anyone can insert information for any purpose. You'll find this assumption is a standard amongst the Color Coin people. It is here that Color Coins breaks down. We saw this unfold with the COIN_DUST issue.
Trusting the issuer is a plausible trade off and others have worked with that assumption. But there remain advantages for mining/blockchain validation based security. I appreciate the comments, and I address the individual points below but before I do, consider the advantages of this architecture. * No mining * No expensive hardware. * No excessive network usage. * No mining pools. * No asic manufacterers. * Instant Confirmations. * No thorny security issues that are often intractable and unmanageable. the general point is though, that ultimately value must rest in it's redeemability for something. Even if this is a complex financial derivative that is a financial function of a financial function denominated in a currency that is itself a complex of financial functions. Ultimately you need to exchange it for something. Even if this exchange isn't something that is eg. edible or physical, it still has some kind of legal value outside the system. This reliance is implicit in all financial systems. And if you don't trust the issuer, why would you want to trade in their issued vouchers? Consider:
- if you want the issuer to be offline (it could be dangerous to have a key online that can create value on whim if it is hacked the system may break down).
- more advanced/2nd gen types of features where the bearer shares are the shares, not a representation for shares in some external authoritative ledger or issuer escrow broker account: there may be a digital prospectus where the issuer is issuing 10,000 shares for their A-round of financing. The prospectus says they need approval from 25% of share holders to issue a second round or to do a share buy-back. So the network validates shares, and all peers reject any shares created in violation of the company prospectus apriori.
You can certainly do complex things such as this in Confidence Chains. - mostly when one is talking about shares, there is no redemption (outside of a company voted share buy-back) - there are just buys and sells on a market setting the price. If you want to redeem the value of your share you sell it.
Sell it for what? another share that has an implicit value, because that share is exchangeable for something else with implicit value. Remember Bitcoin wasn't worth anything until someone bought a pizza with it.  So ultimately you must have at least ONE person willing to redeem the digital vouchers for something in the real world. That could be peanuts, USD, Turkish Lira, Gold Coins, etc. In most environments though there will be MANY issuers who have such implicit promises and what Confidence Chains gives you is a very quickly assembled ledger that all those issuers agree on. Consensus is the key word here. I've abandoned Bitcoin's idea of a global ledger, and this bought me some very attractive performance and architecture features(as well as simplicity). Granted there are issues in hosting eg. trades and supporting some sense of non-bias. Im not sure how a PoW system can give you that. "you can't eat money."- smart contracts depend on final settlement. If the settlement is not final, then undo requests will be made by users in dispute. If your system is based on consensus the court will hit your transaction server/issuer with a demand to undo consensus. Once this happens people will realize the contracts are not smart, and incur the same posthoc dispute costs at the transaction layer as credit cards etc.
you can also do this kind of complex logic chaining and then the remarketing of the risk implicit in those agreements. Confidence Chains can support the same exact Transaction formats that Bitcoin does if you really want it. btw- not sure if you saw Peer-To-Peer Bond Auction http://goo.gl/LVU7A5 thanks for your comments, -bm |
|
|
|
This is not new, you missed it by some years now. It is also slow and unaudited.
do you have a link to what you're referring to? I don't have to, the own link you posted is from 2009. in other words, you dont have a link- you just wanted to try and start a fight. Last modified: Tue Sep 15 23:30:00 PST 2009 Good job. you linked another library for JS based javascipt. um, thanks? has nothing to do with your sordid claim above, but not sure how being a complete jerk on this thread is paying off for you? |
|
|
|
This is not new, you missed it by some years now. It is also slow and unaudited.
do you have a link to what you're referring to? I don't have to, the own link you posted is from 2009. in other words, you dont have a link- you just wanted to try and start a fight. |
|
|
|
Socialism right from the get-go is evil. Why? Because it can exist only by the threat of force - follow these rules, give up a percentage of your earnings...OR ELSE WE WILL COME LOOKING FOR YOU. Resist and you go to jail. Resist further and we will kill you. There is an unspoken gun in the room, always present, always menacing.
You say you want socialism because of the evils of capitalism. Yet you want socialism forced on everyone at the point of a gun. This immediately negates any discussion. Socialism is violent by definition because it is forced upon those who may not want it.
I'll take capitalism any day. Capitalism is not evil. Capitalism lets the market decide. You do not have to force capitalism upon the people at the point of a gun. Capitalism just happens, it is peace. It is industry. It is Bitcoin.
100% agreed on that point but try telling the so-called "liberals" that! My $.02. Phoenix, Arizona checking in.  |
|
|
|
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Possible? Impossible? Impractical? Just plain dumb? Brilliant? ... just thought I would gather some general input on this idea.
Possible. Add http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/ to the list. interesting. |
|
|
|
This is not new, you missed it by some years now. It is also slow and unaudited.
do you have a link to what you're referring to? I researched this quite heavily about a year ago and it would have been very difficult at that point to develop a browser based crypto currency client. NodeJS-based is a different story. |
|
|
|
I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."
Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).
By all means put it in the protocol, because if you succeed we all need to go back to the drawing boards I already went back to the drawing board. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
