Ok thanks for the link to the SPV paper thats really good to know. When I looked it up it was saying it relied on servers. In that case I would really like to use that in future implementations in my software as well.


Ok the new bitcoin core will not solve the problem. Even a 1% chance of malleability will end up becoming 100% with a dedicated scammer. For example, your program works with raw transactions. So I only need to hold on to the raw, change it a little bit and send it to as many pools and nodes as possible. If they mine my fake TX, then your TX will be considered bad and declined. Both parties work with raw transactions, thats the problem. So I can hold a bad copy and interfere.

I'm not trying to deter you, I'm genuinely concerned about this issue. As you may or may not know, Im the guy from BitHalo. One of the implementations of BitHalo is microtrading which is trustless. I used to consider AT but realized it was way too dangerous. I'm sure some Hero members or more crypto guys can comment on this.

Although I see your response and P2SH is maybe only slightly more expensive to change TXID, I used to quote articles on that. However, I believe its a lot easier than you realize to change the txids. You dont need to mine the block, only get access to the mempool and inject your changed TX to other pools in the hopes they get mined. I really would not risk users funds like this. If it happens even once, they lose all their coins.

Yeah this is a good attempt but it doesnt work!

Transaction malleability will destroy any trade. ONLY coins with checklocktimeverify can do AT. I also think Qora has it. If you try AT without it, you are going to run into Malleability and one partly will lose all their Bitcoins.

Also, SPV clients rely on a server correct?!? Then its not trustless because the servers data could be interfered with to say a tx has confirmed when it hasnt causing you to submit your TX and give the attacker coins. I might be misunderstanding SPV but from what I'm reading it communicates with servers and thus their data can be spoofed and it requires a lot of trust.

I would recommend manually rewriting the clients and pruning the blockchain instead of SPV. And then you can only wait for a Malleability patch or Checklocktimeverify.

Well its been discussed a few times in the thread. Mostly, I'm targeting 1-2 months for marketing and 1-2 months for pegging. Thanks for the support. 

Yeah I'm in India meeting with people. Going to start interviews soon... im not expecting anything just seeing what is out there. I'm going to start coding myself today as well. We have a linux build that we are testing however imap gets slow with a flooded inbox so working on that.

So, I'm back to work after a couple days of travel.

well the feature that excites me is the hedging/pegging stuff that is planned. It will be an interesting year. Glad to have you on board!

lol i wonder if they did that deliberately...

I have long thought about this exact thing. However regardless of how they are doing it, the technique proposed at BitBay was to do a soft peg, more of a democratic hedge. Although at first, we wanted to do a hard peg inspired off NuBits but when I proposed the rolling peg people preferred the idea in the hopes it would provoke volume and be more interesting for growth. There is no guarantee we will get any buy walls although I dont see why we shouldnt get a reasonable one. MY theory is that a buy wall isnt needed if you have control over deflation. So BitBays peg would be a pure control over deflation rates. Since we wouldnt be paying interest for parking (although its an interesting idea...) then there isnt the need for custodians. However, parking is always possible with locktimes.

The use of custodians goes against what I believe in which is trustless networks. Since our rates are controlled by a vote, its pretty close to trustless although i could see a person buying their preferred interest rate although it would be expensive to do.

In effect, pure control over deflation and inflation rates would not be like NuBits which does have some elements of a ponzi (although he is misusing the term).

Ponzi schemes are classically known as "Rob Peter to pay Paul" and thus, it means that someone would sell shares to a company at an inflated price to pay off old shareholders and if everyone was to call their shares forward they would be forced to shut down.

The term "Ponzi" is misused so much, it reflects on how loose people are with words these days.

So I think the author should be looking for another term. What he is saying is NuBits is not sustainable. Which may or may not be true. I dont like the centralized aspect which is why I'm not interested in a hard peg but a soft rolling hedge. This way, we try to promote growth in the coin by controlling supply to reflect demand.

And this is only the first evolution of a deflationary coin. There will be many ways to expand off of what we are trying to do here.

Perhaps NuBits can sustain itself since the walls always seem to be sufficient to hold the price. As long as the buy wall is good enough, i dont see how it can fail. Although the "custodians" arent obligated at all and thats why i dont want to use them.

On the other hand, there is a great arbitrage opportunity in NuBits and even now with Bitcoin being very bearish, NuBits held its price. I suppose the true test will be in a bull market.

The future is markets and pegging/hedging.

Actually, I disagree. I think cryptocurrency is a technology way more far reaching than Bitcoin. And I hope Bitcoin fails so that people open their eyes to decentralization and other tech and stop worshiping btc. Also, its already clear that if Bitcoin fails NuBits will still be at one dollar! So if we have pegging mechanisms with Bay, it will survive.

Earlier i posted a link and nobody tested it for me... we had to rebuild bitbayd for windows 8. But I need someone to test it.

Maybe people are just waiting for markets. In general the cryptocurrency space is pretty stagnant.

That will depend on what you have in liquid assets.

Look at it this way, lets say at the current prices, you have $1000 worth of bitbay (like 10 million coins). And lets say that after the fork, we do 90/10 split.

So, you will only have 1,000,000 coins liquid and 9,000,000 in reserves.

IF we vote for inflation at 1%, then you will be able to spend 1% of the 9 million. If the vote is for 1% deflation then you will be able to spend 99% of the 1 million and the 1% deflation will be forced back as change to the same wallet sending and will be tagged as reserve.

You have only 1/10th of the coins liquid that at the original price would be worth only 100 dollars (assuming the price doesnt move). BUT the supply being reduced can cause the price to increase. Thus, lets say for example your 10 million coins will be worth $10,000 because of the reduced supply. Therefore you have exacly the same amount liquid as you had previously total. Since 1/10th of 10,000 is 1,000.

So, if you did sell the $1,000 worth of coins after the fork, you would have to wait for inflation to access the 90% reserves.

Yeah im going to be adding a mining rule that is enforced on the inputs which will require them to divide them based on inflation. So if someone tries to spend reserves when there is no inflation, the transaction will get rejected.

They couldnt sell even if they wanted to. The point is they wont be able to sell 100% of their coins they can only sell what they have liquid. So they may have 10% liquid 90% reserve (after the fork its probable we will start at 90/10 and there will be 900 million reserve and 100 million liquid) The network will only approve liquid transfers. Then that will respond to both inflation and deflation. Also the creation of demand can be done by doing a rolling peg where we usually vote for deflation so supply continually restricts provoking demand.

Can anyone with windows 8 see if this build of bitbayd works? Steven just sent this to me, wanted to see if this helps windows 8 users.
 http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=06722116669587652715

fyi, bitbaytalk is the new official twitter.

I believe that would be Metakid

Thank you. You know, its hard to find reliable help these days and that is one of the many reasons the project started the way it did. My original approach to the project was to project manage and license but now that the smoke has cleared and things changed, its nice to see 2015 is off to a fresh start and to be a part of it. And Bitcoin being as bearish as it is, im looking forward to exploring pegging possibilities.