Whoa maxcoin uses sha-3 pretty cool
Check Blake2. The performance charts are interesting. |
|
|
|
What pool do you run?
I'm talking about miners -- the people who collect transactions into a block -- not the people who contribute computing services to a mining pool, yet have zero impact over how the network is run.
I no longer run a pool or solo mine. So you suggest major pool operators (e.g. eleuthria) and large, independent mining owners (e.g. gigavps) are the ones to discuss the options with? |
|
|
|
OP_RETURN and 40 vs 80 bytes: If the miners agree with you, you don't have to care what the network relays. Has Counterparty directly approached miners, to get them to mine 80-byte OP_RETURN transactions? What was the response? If the miners agree, great, let's do it. If the miners don't agree, there is no point supporting it in Bitcoin Core software.
As a miner I fully support exploring any functionality which adds value to Bitcoin, the only request being that introducing it be done in a controlled manner. The risk of increasing OP_RETURN to 80 bytes does not seem to outweigh the potential benefits, especially when multisig might not be prunable. Of course a lone miner's opinion is unlikely to sway the argument, so what would the dev criteria be -- a major pool supporting the change, Gigavps getting onboard, a certain number of signatures obtained for a petition, etc? |
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that stress testing proof of concepts would go far in settling the issue -- let's get some real data to see whether CheckMultiSig or OP_RETURN (40 or 80 byte) causes more problems.
|
|
|
|
I really don't think 5 XCP is a big price to a serious issuance now. the problem is just that it is burnt. However, even there will be 10k assets, 50k XCP is still a small part of 2.6M. Moreover, the fee can be reduced later when XCP appreciate a lot.
Please don't low the fee too much and otherwise there will be a lot of rubbish asset names.
True, 5 XCP isn't painful, and I don't even think the burning is a problem -- with fees to be determined by PoS, there should be an ever-decreasing fee schedule along with the decreasing available supply. What's missing in that approach is the flexibility of claiming an asset. Imagine a company being liquidated, its XCP holdings one of the assets freed when the shares are called back. In bankruptcy that could be used to cover debts. Alternatively, locking the starting funds could allow a business to transition from shareholder-owned to employee-owned. Assume a sizeable amount of startup funds are used as the asset creation fee. With those funds locked up, the business has to either acquire additional funding or perform to build itself up. As the business grows, it can start to buy back shares and either call back outstanding issues to free up locked funds, or employees of the business can obtain those shares and opt to call them back as needed. This would be much like a retirement fund. Insurance funds can be similarly structured such that each policy issued has funds locked and instantaneously auditable. None of these potentials would be realistic with burning as a means of asset issuance. |
|
|
|
I don't think the fee should be destroyed. It would be a much better idea to pay it to Bitcoin miners or XCP holders. No? Maybe I don't understand it well enough.
But yeah 5 xcp seems a bit much.
Destroying the fee is paying it to XCP holders. Destroying the fee reduces unit availability, which isn't necessarily an issue if the destruction process will last longer than the system's usefulness. However, I think a better option would be to simply lock the fee (unless called back). Creating an uncallable asset would essentially be burning. |
|
|
|
This is a fine idea, but with such things the devil is realyl in the details. It's very important to keep the Counterparty protocol as simple as possible... especially at this stage, when people are not using the existing functionality anywhere near as much as they could. The network has a great potential to scale, and we have to avoid hard-coded values, fees, etc. wherever possible. Worse is better.
Simply lock the XCP required for asset issuance, only to be released upon liquidation of the asset. This can then be counted as a financial (cash equivalent?) asset in bankruptcy circumstances. |
|
|
|
You might put James Turk, founder of GoldMoney.com, into the mix. He had been quite skeptical of Bitcoin, but more than a year ago, after doing a lot of his own research, he embraced cryptocurrencies and had been trying to use them at GoldMoney.com. I don't know exactly how, though. He's very critical of the entrenched powers and their abuse of the gold market in order to support fiat currencies. So he not only has a great deal of knowledge and experience about the gold and other precious metals markets, he is very interested in how cryptocurrencies can disrupt the destructive and corrupt politico-economic systems in place now. I have no idea how to get his attention. I am sure that wealthy, influential people like him are bombarded with "great ideas" all the time by naive entrepreneurs. But if you make a solid business proposal (and it sounds like you have a very solid beginning), he might listen. Google "James Turk Bitcoin" and you'll find a few links, including this interview ( http://bitcoinmoney.com/post/31942156510/james-turk-felix-moreno). He's been trying to integrate Bitcoin into his business, but I'm not sure how successful he's been. (And I haven't done all that much research.) It would be easy-ish to take payments in bitcoin (several companies are already doing it), but what you're proposing is far more advanced and interesting. Much gratitude from our team. Your referral to James Turk is helpful. We were aware of GoldMoney, but not of their bitcoin trials and struggles. We will reach out to him to connect as I think we might learn from their actions and we may be able to add value to their efforts with bitcoin and Counterparty. Thank you. There were several surveys conducted with existing clients and GoldMoney now has a partner company, Netagio. |
|
|
|
As an immediate solution, we will let our custodians provide PoR and PoC on a daily basis and we will syndicate this data on our site. We are looking at http://www.bullionvault.com/audit.do that appears to have solve the daily auditing-report problem, but it still not the provably-at-a-distance-true that you're asking. I'd recommend Mike Maloney's GoldSilver or Gold Bullion International. |
|
|
|
Indeed, although it may be more of a controlling interest stake than a threat. With sufficient holdings, it can be let out as needed to provide tracking vectors. Unlike many participants in this forum I do not expect a sharp and immediate collapse of Bitcoin if/when tainting is rolled in. Tainting may seem like an anathema to many of us, but to probably a majority of folks on the street it will probably be seen as a good thing. Thwarting crime, terrorism, etc. With a little of the Bitcoin Foundation marketing magic it will be even more the case.
Agreed -- that's where the loss of Bitcoin's innocence occurs, not its death. As Erdogan suggests, there may be a bifurcation that develops -- the "legitimate" CV economy could shrink into irrelevance if certain complementary technologies arise (blind transactions and such). We can hope, anyway. Have to recommend the most comprehensive compilation of information on decentralized crypto-related tech currently: Great Wall of Numbers - The Guide. |
|
|
|
Anyone notice how quiet this thread got while gold was rising? it's a matter of what's going to run up the fastest and the furthest with time.
 Regarding subsequent discussion, at times I fear the noose may be Bitcoin. A handful of power players is all that's needed to realize the impossibility of controlling Bitcoin, and that the best course of action is therefore to own the lion's share. Silk Road and Gox confiscations measure up to this nicely. With more being shunted through major exchanges, coloring coins for legal purposes is a foregone conclusion -- we can't be so naive as to think it is an issue of whether it will happen. As for bank-supported exchanges, there is the strong desire to remain as gatekeepers by leveraging Bitcoin while trading meatspace interactions. In other words: track everything. Multisig, blind transactions, DEXes, etc. These things cannot come soon enough. i propose a 1BTC bet that sometime in the next year, Bitcoin will catch gold (hence outperform) and go to parity once again in USD terms as it did in November. if it does, i win, if it doesn't, you win. we can each put 1BTC in escrow, hopefully in a smart contract on the blockchain as i've been wanting to test that out. we can have someone like Smoothie or Melbustus act as the escrow agent who can sign the winnings over to one of us if they are agreeable.
Sure, I'd act as an escrow agent to that (3rd sig on a blockchain contract or just normal escrow). Always love a good btc/gold bet. Let's agree beforehand what price-quote sources both parties consider valid. Try Counterparty |
|
|
|
I have suggested to Tristan to add an XCP/MSC pair. I think somebody here posted about letting people sell MSC to buy XCP, so I figured if the direct XCP/MSC pair was the only way, the market will have a way to directly trade how they are comparing counterparty to mastercoin.
No need to get on an exchange, just a bot that facilitates DEX trades with one. DEX <> bot <> MSC (on central exchange) An MSC asset could be issued, and outstanding units adjusted based on availability. This isn't the most relevant solution, but it is an option. |
|
|
|
By crypto subsume fiat, do you mean that national currencies are expected to become cryptocurrency issued by nations or some other form of subsumption?
National currencies are ostensibly reserve currencies. One of the reserves is gold, though under BASIL III gold takes a lesser role to bonds issued by other nations, it remains one of the reserves upon which the fiat-crypto currencies base their reserves.
If your proposition is that people ought never value anything physical value and only the abstract value of mathematical beauty as the resulting environment established by maths, this is quite a radical abstraction for physical human beings, and I would suggest unlikely to occur short of some wholesale transcendence of physicality altogether.
At the risk of using an analogy apropos to valentines day:
Just as the abstraction of love may be considered a higher and more valued formulation than physical sex, without sex backing love, humanity ends. It is not one vs the other but the combination of both that is sensible.
National currencies are unlikely to be decentralized. If they were, competition would eventually settle with a clear winner. I think governments will learn how to work with decentralized cryptocurrencies, thereby granting full legitimacy for replacement of traditional, centralized fiat. Crypto will therefore absorb the functions of today's fiat. I agree that it will be some time until even collective awareness and understanding take root, let alone any substantial shift to abstract. Your analogy is very appropriate. |
|
|
|
We're coming for you MasterCoin...
Volume is far more important right now, in which case XCP has already surpassed MSC and is closing in on XRP. |
|
|
|
I'll say this. If Bitcoin wins the currency battle, it will be an excellent store of value and probably beat the crap out of gold in a human lifetime. However, my money is not on this happening. What say you?
If I might interject -- crypto will subsume fiat. Gold is restricted to a physical presence while much of existing society is already becoming an abstraction. How would gold be able to cross the Rubicon? Bitcoin is already there. This monetary transition goes beyond anything that has ever come before, yet it is only one part of the whole. Looking at gold vs. Bitcoin in isolation provides only a momentary picture, lacking scope of the larger trend. The transition is a logical (natural?) macro progression. As a vehicle, gold is the value store which will act as a bridge between existing wealth and influence, and that to be found in the resulting environment established by maths. |
|
|
|
We'll see. They might be able to scale it back quite a bit, actually, before interest rates move too much, as long as USD is still the defacto global reserve asset. It's really in China's hands.
Rickards is suggesting mid-year as the reversal point. I shudder to think what tapering until then will do to societies. |
|
|
|
Exchange solution: - Buy Nxtchg
- Add XCP
- Implement direct Counterparty interface
|
|
|
|
|
Sinclair has shown he views gold as the means by which fiat transitions to crypto. Whether both Bitcoin and gold will perform synchronously is still a point of debate.
|
|
|
|
To move this thread in a more productive direction what do people here think about Rhodium?
Definitely worth a dabble, though maybe not quite as interesting from a trading perspective as BTC/LTC. The ratios are where the fun is anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
