 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
|
To date, I've not seen a blockchain data dumping scheme that could not be securely replaced with a simple hash. You don't need to store data in the blockchain. That is purely intellectual laziness. Timestamping hash(data) is just as secure, while more efficient. Furthermore, a secondary chain can be provably pegged to bitcoin: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32108143/Greetings Jeff. Thank you for stopping by. I was chatting with Eric and Stephen tonight at Bitpay's new offices about this topic and we had agreed to share an email to explore further, but you beat me to it. You're absolutely right. You don't need to store data in the blockchain. Timestamping hash(data) is just as secure, while more efficient. A secondary chain can be provably pegged to bitcoin. However, Counterparty IS storing data in the blockchain using 256 bytes in each one-of-three multi-sig transactions, as per PhantomPhreak's note below. Additionally, all these multisig transactions are processed by the miners. On the plus side, we can fit a lot more than 80 bytes into 256 one-of-three multi-sig outputs, and now we have no incentive to use less than that except lower fees.
If OP_RETURN was meant to stop/curtail the multisig behavior (Unspent Outputs) and hereby reduce blockchain bloat, then I fear by reducing the size of OP_RETURN from 80 to 40 bytes, you've inadvertently made multisig MORE ATTRACTIVE to all the metaprotocols and you've made OP_RETURN less attractive. The cost of paying the miners fees has not reduced the ability to survive with multisig. The technical details are well beyond my abilities, but PhantomPhreak's assertion that the economics of time/effort of squeezing into 40bytes should be noted. Here are Phantom's words: It would take some serious shoe-horning to fit all of the data we need into 40 bytes reliably, and in three months they could lower it to 35 bytes (again, for no reason) and then we'd be screwed.
We (All the metaprotocols) WANT to use OP_RETURN as it is in everyone's interests to do so, but if you hobble the feature's functionality such that the costs to use OP_RETURN are too high to consider, then markets will find other, less costly alternatives to achieve its goals. We have a mutual interest in reducing blockchain bloat. Is there any reason why 80 bytes will reduce both our abilities to reach that shared objective and is there any reason 40 bytes will make it easier? Best, BTT EDIT & NOTE: Jeff, we're totally okay to take this conversation to the bitcoin core dev mailing list if that's a more appropriate location for this discussion. I will cross-post my follow-up here on the bitcoin core dev mailing list as a new topic. Thanks! BTT |
|
|
|
I can't argue how you feel about the core devs. However, no one stood up to the technical merits of why 80 bytes was needed. Jeff and Gavin have simply made claims about 40 byte change being good enough and SPAM being a problem. Unfortunately, I did not have the technical breadth to ask how they came to those conclusions, but disengaging in the technical discourse is not letting others understand the potential.
The open letter was a first step to engage, but it's not good enough. We need to say something on the list.
It would be very hard to seriously say there isn't a technical reason for OP_Return to be 80 that they aren't aware of. Good point. Let me then do what I'm good at: Backroom political dealing with greasy fingers. I will reach out to Jeff via some of the Bitpay bitcore devs to explore if we can share an introduction to the Counterparty devs to explore the OP_RETURN options. The Bitpay devs are already impressed that Counterparty is using Bitpay's Insight for Counterwallet. |
|
|
|
This post is great, but this is now how the bitcoin core team works to make a change. Here's my 3 steps for engaging the bitcoin core dev team on the change which may not guarantee anything will happen, but is better than an open letter which they will most likely never read. Step 1: Counterparty Devs need to get on the bitcoin core dev mailing list and understand the decision making process and how the core devs see OP_RETURN. Hint: They mostly don't like it. Here's the discussion when they decided to go from 80 bytes to 40. http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04013.htmland here's Gavin's opinion about 40 bytes http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04018.htmlStep 2: The Counterparty Core devs here need to get on that mailing list and share (not argue) their technical points for a 75 byte or 80 byte limit. The biggest concern is SPAM on the blockchain. How does Counterparty prevent SPAM when Mastercoin or others may do so? It may require Counterparty providing some ways to fix OP_RETURN to help address these issues. This is contributing to the bitcoin core. Mastercoin is absent from this list most likely because they have given up on representation so there may be room for new voices. Step 3: Assume that this change will not happen immediately (if at all), but will need to be pressed weekly. I would recommend also sending a direct note to Jeff Garzik and Gavin explaining why this is important and why it will not lead to abuse. You can't argue from afar. You must engage and you must acquire the attention of key stakeholders in this discussion. You must join the bitcoindevs mailing list and represent the Counterparty position. However, none of this is a guarantee that any action will be taken. We are on that mailing list. The Bitcoin core development team is just a cabal, and they need to see popular demand for features before they support them. Otherwise, they're too inclined to be conservative for the sake of being conservative, e.g. in this case, where there is no actual justification for their decisions. It just makes the situation worse. I can't argue how you feel about the core devs. However, no one stood up to the technical merits of why 80 bytes was needed. Jeff and Gavin have simply made claims about 40 byte change being good enough and SPAM being a problem. Unfortunately, I did not have the technical breadth to ask how they came to those conclusions, but disengaging in the technical discourse is not letting others understand the potential. The open letter was a first step to engage, but it's not good enough. We need to say something on the list. |
|
|
|
This post is great, but this is now how the bitcoin core team works to make a change. Here's my 3 steps for engaging the bitcoin core dev team on the change which may not guarantee anything will happen, but is better than an open letter which they will most likely never read. Step 1: Counterparty Devs need to get on the bitcoin core dev mailing list and understand the decision making process and how the core devs see OP_RETURN. Hint: They mostly don't like it. Here's the discussion when they decided to go from 80 bytes to 40. http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04013.htmland here's Gavin's opinion about 40 bytes http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04018.htmlStep 2: The Counterparty Core devs here need to get on that mailing list and share (not argue) their technical points for a 75 byte or 80 byte limit. The biggest concern is SPAM on the blockchain. How does Counterparty prevent SPAM when Mastercoin or others may do so? It may require Counterparty providing some ways to fix OP_RETURN to help address these issues. This is contributing to the bitcoin core. Mastercoin is absent from this list most likely because they have given up on representation so there may be room for new voices. Step 3: Assume that this change will not happen immediately (if at all), but will need to be pressed weekly. Counterparty devs need to get on that mailing list so they can see to whom they can send direct notes to appeal the change, including engaging Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen, explaining why this is technically important and why it will not lead to abuse. You can't argue from afar. You must engage and you must acquire the attention of key stakeholders in this discussion. You must join the bitcoindevs mailing list and represent the Counterparty position. However, none of this is a guarantee that any action will be taken. |
|
|
|
Anybody who is interest in creating such an asset like below? if it is possible? example; Asset issuer creates BTCEUSD asset with qty 10,000 (equating to 10,000 'shares/tokens' of 1 BTC- EUSD and total value of 10,000 USD) . They make sure to keep a balance of min 10,000 USD in BTC-E exchange The issuer would show a public API key and publish this with read-only query privileges enabled in the asset description area to demonstrate they hold full reserves of USD This can be transparently verifiable by public. example below {
"success":1,
"return":{
"funds":{
"usd":10000,
"btc":0,
"sc":0,
"ltc":0,
"ruc":0,
"nmc":0
},
"rights":{
"info":1,
"trade":0
},
"transaction_count":0,
"open_orders":0,
"server_time":xxxxxxx
}
}Users, at any time can visit a website and redeem the number of shares for BTC-E vouchers amounting to the corresponding BTCEUSD they hold. (maybe they would first select amount and provide mail address, then sign a message stating number of shares to be transferred, then make the transfer, voucher would then be mailed to them) This way, the users could trade in/out of USD seamlessly on DEX whilst still keeping BTC off-exchange. and not being exposed to the associated risks that brings. Of course they would still be at mercy of trusting the issuer will always give redemption of these USD, with trusted persons managing the assets this risk could be negated somewhat. is it even technically achievable to do this using counterparty? That's definitely possible. +1 Let the Counterparty Asset Issuance innovation grow! |
|
|
|
An simple idea that seems to have been ignored on the official forums...
Wouldn't it be easier to just allow dots in the asset names (hint: Global_trade_repo's hierarchy idea)?
That way BTT.UNIQUESILVER and BTT.RARECOIN would not collide with someone else's UNIQUESILVER and RARECOIN?
As suggested by Global_trade_repo, the asset names with dots in them could cost less to issue.
Not only that, but the buyers could be more confident that the assets were issued from BTT without rechecking/verifying the description/catalog. An impostor could issue a VERYRARECOIN with a description poiting to BTT's catalog for example. But the impostor cannot fake a BTT.VERYRARECOIN asset if it's required to own the BTT asset first.
We should also allow other characters such as #, $, %, and digits after the dot in the asset names. So BTT can issue BTT.SILVER$100 or BTT.GOLD#1906 for example.
Otherwise, assuming a business can issue 100000+ assets, how does it go about organizing/tracking assets efficiently? It much easier to match BTT.GOLD#1906 or BTT.RAREGOLD#18394 from a catalog than to search for BTT.GOLDXFR and BTT.RAREGOLDSXR to identify the asset.
If Counterparty is a protocol like TCP/IP, then we will need a flexible asset naming scheme that works almost like the domain naming system.
The BitcoinTangibleTrust team supported this approach on the official forums, as well. Global_trade_repo's suggestion was genius. We like it for more extensive naming degrees of freedom. |
|
|
|
For example, there are thousands of types of silvercoins with different make, quality, size, and ownership histories. We use generic catalog names to make these assets easy to identify in our catalog and easy for our customers to discretely digitize and trade. We respect this diversity and don't aim to constrain it as we didn't create it ourselves.
It makes sense now. +1 We would like to digitize you on the Counterparty Protocol kdrop22...if you're ermm..amenable to having us put you into custody! </GRIN> |
|
|
|
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.
I completely agree. BTT I think what you are doing is interesting but I don't understand why you need to issue assets with unique names. If someone wants to redeem a silver coin what difference does it make which one they send to you for redemption? We issue asset with unique names for the following three reasons which may not be exhaustive, but should give you a view into why we are trying to grow: 1. Asset diversity is massively immense: Our business objective is to digitize EVERY possible valuable hard asset in existence onto the Counterparty Protocol. As such, we need a very large name space because our owners of these assets number in the millions and their valuables are very unique. For example, there are thousands of types of silvercoins with different make, quality, size, and ownership histories. We use generic catalog names to make these assets easy to identify in our catalog and easy for our customers to discretely digitize and trade. We respect this diversity and don't aim to constrain it as we didn't create it ourselves. 2. Our customer holdings are infinitely diverse: We have many potential customers who want to issue 1 silvercoin, 100 silvercoins or even 5 GoldCoins + 100 Silvercoins. Valuable hard assets come in infintitely diverse holdings that we do not control. However, we do not aim to comingle customer physical assets into 1 asset issuance called SILVERBTT. That would devalue the uniqueness of their holdings and force them to issue these assets on their own. We want to ensure that all our customers believe that BTT will customize their digital assets as per their needs to maintain control and with as many degrees of freedom as they desire. 3. Counterparty is a Protocol: We see and want to use Counterparty as a protocol, like TCP/IP or HTML/SGML. Our objective is to build many digital asset applications and businesses on this protocol. We truly believe that millions of businesses can survive, but only if the protocol is neither too restrictive nor expensive in allowing companies to experiment, build, and eventually scale. Yes. If you are an XCP holder, you should be begging more companies to come and build on protocol by touting the lowest asset issuance fees, the fast and rapid dev team responsiveness and the amazing community here willing to give feedback and help. If our protocol is not attractive to build an experiment, people will simply find other protocols or fork their own protocols to achieve their business objectives. Ripple, Mastercoin, Bitshares, NXT, Ethereum, and many other protocols yet to launch will gladly accept the companies we discourage because of our fears. I hope this helps? BitcoinTangibleTrust |
|
|
|
Product and Service Updates March 17, 2014Our goal will be to offer daily updates on our new Asset Backed Coin services on a daily basis with the Counterparty Community. If there are importnt questions the community demands of us, please do ask us these questions. Our mission is to build a reputable service that can increase the value of XCP holders. Thank you JahPowerBit for his impressive BootleXCP wallet workWe would like to thank JahPowerBit for his amazing wallet work with BootleXP and his upcoming wallet launch. We have forked our own BTT_XCP version of the wallet to create an Asset Trading Wallet. You may check out our initial Repo fork here. We have scaled down the wallet functionality to essentialy focus on digital asset sales and physical redemption. Yes. Our trading wallet is ugly as it is our first born. however, we think asset trading is immensely difficult and we will be looking to incrementally add new wallet features that benefit dumb, lowest barrier to digital asset trading. If you have any thoughts/criticisms, we warmly welcome them. If you like JahPowerBit's work, please donate to his efforts. We have donated 150XCP in thank yous!Proof of Donation here: http://www.blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=1AJh4ADaYTNvMJidWz5aUetqnmdeiNSySEBitcoinTangibleTrust welcomes our First Counterparty Community Gold BuyerA Counterparty community member reached out out to us to explore diversifying their holdings into our digital Gold Coins. We are working with the buyer get started on our purchase and proof of custody process. As we are new, we are moving slowly to ensure they are comfortable and in control. With their permission, we will also document the transaction in the threads on Bitcointalk and the Counterparty Forums. We will be conducting this purchase at zero fees to establish initial credibility and reputation for our value proposition. If you'd like to work with us on a trial basis for a small gold order, please PM us. We'd love to work with you today as BTC prices continue to fall and Gold continues to rise! Temporary Counterparty Issuance Fee ReductionWhy is a temporary reduction in Counterparty fees important to the Counterparty ecosystem? It reduces the cost of business model testing for companies seeking to build on the Counterparty protocol. With our first customer above, we are forgoing all our XCP issuance fees to help them launch their first digital coin purchases with BitcoinTangibleTrust. The reduced counterparty fees will make this and other marketing promotions less costly so that we may survive before our burned XCPs run out while searching for a business model. We support the community in the issue of SPAM assets and expect that our use of noninteresting names will be disincentive for Spammers to hoarde asset names. We look forward to an implementation of Proof of Stake voting as the new method for fee issuance. Our ASK for Community help today At Bitcoin Tangible Trust, we are looking for global reputable Gold and Silver Sellers, Custodians, outside the USA, who will accept BTC. If you know of any website or contact you think is reputable, will you please PM us with your insights and introductions? Thank you to the community members who have already shared their resources so far. Thank you Counterparty Community, Thank you Counterparty Devs Bitcoin Tangible Trust Team
|
|
|
|
200% markup? That's going to leave alot of room for competition. . . Gold and silver online sells the physical item for half price in dollars. Do you plan on syncing the fiat equivalent in your bitcoin pricing? If this has already been answered, I apologize.
I'm sorry halfcalb123, are you referring to our Two 1 ozt Credit Suisse Gold .9999 Fine (In Assay) Digital Coins for BTC 4.3 or $2,672.00? That item is for 2 Gold Bars at $1,367.00 per ounce at today's spot or $2,734.00. I think the advertised price is possibly $62.00 cheaper than today's gold price. Did I err in my understanding of your post? |
|
|
|
Actually Phantom a small correction:
We need full flexibility to issue 1 new Asset name for each Silver/Gold/Whatever physical asset if needs arise from our customers either at issuance or redemption.
Of course you'll have the ability to do that. But I think that there will be downsides in usability. (For instance, it will be harder to trade them on the distributed exchange if a price cannot be established. If all of the silver coins are the same, then they should be priced the same.) Excellent point. We're in new territory here, but we aim to simply be a decentralized digitizing platform/marketplace for our clients. We take the Craigslist/eBay approach to listings. Customers control the price they wish to trade on the DEX, but it will be buyers to determine what price is fair. We do not aim to centralize gold/silver prices. Maybe this is a great opportunity for a Counterparty community member to start pricing out Gold and Silver feeds for Spot? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Tangible Trust, if you want to issue an asset for a fully-redeemable silver coin that costs you, say, $20 to buy and put into custody? How does a 5 XCP asset issuance fee effect the end price that you need to charge a customer to buy this silver coin?
EDIT: OK, I just did the math. 5 XCP = $32 @ 0.01 BTC/XCP and $640 BTC/USD. So, basically at 5 XCP issuance fee you would need to charge $52 for a silver coin that otherwise could be purchased from a coin dealer for $20. So, yes, from my basic analysis, this seems like a blockage, at least for BTT's business model anyways.
EDIT: Porqupine, maybe you see / understand something that I am missing? Can you please elaborate? Interested to better understand your perspective, as you always have such good postings on this list.
The asset issuance fee is a one time fee - you can issue Silvercoin quantity=100 or =1000 or however many you like. Correct. You should definitely not issue a new asset for each silver coin. Actually Phantom a small correction: We need full flexibility to issue 1 new Asset name for each Silver/Gold/Whatever physical asset if needs arise from our customers either at issuance or redemption. At BitcoinTangible Trust, we have absolutely ZERO interest in vanity names as our business model intends to globally scale to millions of coins. If you check our asset listing you can view them here: http://bitcointangibletrust.com/assets/ you will notice we have a naming convention that allows us to create catalog-driven names that are unique to our business. Name squatting is of little worry for us as our namespace is large. However, we are grateful to receive relief from asset issuance costs. |
|
|
|
The team at BitcoinTangibleTrust would find this immensely of benefit to helping get new customers onto our Digital Gold Coin Offerings powered by XCP! We have a special promotion for Counterparty members we'd like to launch this week and a 0.5 XCP fee would lower our marketing costs immensely. Thank you PhantomPhreak and the Counterparty Dev Team! |
|
|
|
 Our ASK for help today Will you please look at our website offerings at http://www.bitcointangibletrust.com and share your feedback or criticisms on what we can do to make our offerings compelling for you to purchase a digital gold coin, today? Many Thanks The Bitcoin Tangible Trust Team Let me rephrase this : Can you check our half-ass website and let us know how we can get your money, since we are completely clueless. And btw, we want your money not tomorrow or next month, but TODAY ! This is really ballsy, I love it ! Thanks Bellebite2014. We're with you and we think our site looks half-itty-half-assed, as well. Your feedback is super helpful as it means not even the current value proposition and offer is better than the ugly appearance. We need to rethink what folks really want/need. Would you agree? Fair enough. This is usually the first step of any business. Is there any market for it, and how do I fit in there ? Ahmen and +1 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Tangible Trust
Here is some feedback.
Item 1:
Use Case:
User A purchases 10 "Gold Coins" from Bitcoin Tangible Trust. BTT issues 10 coins of type GLDAEA and transfers ownership to User A. User A sells these coins to User B, via the distributed exchange.
After 6 months, User B would like to take physical delivery of their gold coins. So, user B would contact BitcoinTangibleTrust, provide evidence of the private key and request withdrawal. Would this scenario work? As the original purchaser is User A , can they be traded on the distributed exchange?
For redeeming the 10 coins, the current process is to provide evidence of private key. However, this might cause some confusion as the 10 GLDEA coins will still reside in the wallet of user B.
Shouldn't the user be sending you back the 10 GLDAEA coins and provide proof of private key by message signing. Once the transaction is confirmed, you should probably destroy those GLDAEA coins(send it to a burn address). This will greatly simplify the accounting as the total number of outstanding coins will equal the number of physical coins stored in the vault. (Also, this will prevent User B from fradulantly selling the re-demmeded GLDAEA coins to User C).
Item 1 Answer: When A sells these coins to User B, via the wallet, once BTCPay is complete, the asset is now linked to User B's public address, let's call it PublicAddressB. After 6 months B can bring his private key for his PublicAddessB to our custodian redemption site, provide their contact information, and sign our confirmation message they they own the private key. Once we have private key confirmation for PublicAddressB, the asset can be delivered to User B. Yes. We instruct User B to send back the 10 GLDAEA coins when finalizing redemption, but we won't depend on them to do that. If we do not receive the 10 GLDAEAs (say within 30 minutes) of redemption, we will call the coins back to our public issuance address with our recorded Custodian confirmation that the coins will be shipped to User B. We are aware that there could be a window of time (15 - 20 minutes) that User B tries to fraudulently offload the 10 GLDAEA for millions of dollars to an unsuspecting buyer who thought the coins were backed. We're monitoring these edge cases. Item 2:
Once the webwallet is released. You might want to consider marketing the Gold for Bitcoin service to the broader Bitcoin community and not just the XCP community.
Item 2 Answer: Yes. We've started off in this community because we know that the folks here are mighty forgiving as we all want to see Counterparty assets succeed. We have some ways to go to clean up our value proposition (and website look/feel) before we are ready for increased awareness even on Bitcointalk.org. We've already turned down an interview by Bloomberg this week. Item 3:
This item is probably already on your list. Once the content for the website is finalized, you might want to consider hiring a professional Designer to give the website a more polished look. Item 3 Answer: Yes. We launched to be ugly and to verify that we had a value proposition that was more compelling than the UI. As we continue to absorb and incorporate feedback, we plan to revamp and relaunch a much nicer and less offensive appearance. We appreciate that finance applications must look polished, but before we pour on the web design, we desperately need to know: Does anyone really care about betting and trading gold coins on the blockchain with Counterparty?What are your thoughts on the use case we proposed? Humble thank yous for the excellent questions you took time to share today. Bitcoin Tangible Trust Team |
|
|
|
Our ASK for help today Will you please look at our website offerings at http://www.bitcointangibletrust.com and share your feedback or criticisms on what we can do to make our offerings compelling for you to purchase a digital gold coin, today? Many Thanks The Bitcoin Tangible Trust Team Let me rephrase this : Can you check our half-ass website and let us know how we can get your money, since we are completely clueless. And btw, we want your money not tomorrow or next month, but TODAY ! This is really ballsy, I love it ! Thanks Bellebite2014. We're with you and we think our site looks half-itty-half-assed, as well. Your feedback is super helpful as it means not even the current value proposition and offer is better than the ugly appearance. We need to rethink what folks really want/need. Would you agree? |
|
|
|
Sent you guys some feedback on the site via PM, BTT.
Wow! We shared it around the team and we're impressed with the substantial effort, including PNGs! Thank you for taking your valuable time to share. A comprehensive response will be upcoming. We like implementing your recommendations. They work! |
|
|
|
Product and Service Updates: March 15, 2014 Our goal will be to offer daily updates on our new Asset Backed Coin services on a daily basis with the Counterparty Community. We welcome your continued feedback as we build our platform and services on Counterparty Updated FAQWe have updated our Updated FAQ with the questions and answers we shared with the community this week. We would like to extend our thanks to the following community members who have asked us about our service for the benefit of our new clients and even our newest partners. Special thanks to: - miscreanity
- sparta_cuss
- porqupine
- led_lcd
- halfcab123
- trilli0n
- kdrop22
- cityglut
- MattY
If there are any other questions the community demands of us, please do ask us these questions. Our mission is to build a reputable service that can increase the value of XCP holders. New Asset ProofsWe are implementing 3 Proofs for all assets we purchase and then hold in custody with our custodian companies. They include the following - Proof of Purchase: We collect and provide all gold and silver purchase receipts for all assets we purchase
- Proof of Possession: We share picture proof of all assets under custody possession with Serial Numbers
- Proof of Custody: You may all our Custody Companies directly for Proof of Custody Account. This is currently on a per customer basis.
What about Trustless?We understand that we can do better to decentralize and make this process even more trustless. We will continue to build new features into this process programmatically. We are glad to provide contact information to our Custodians for any of our assets for independent verification. Our ASK for help today Will you please look at our website offerings at http://www.bitcointangibletrust.com and share your feedback or criticisms on what we can do to make our offerings compelling for you to purchase a digital gold coin, today? Many Thanks The Bitcoin Tangible Trust Team
|
|
|
|
BitcoinTangibleTrust
Will you be selling Silver on your site as well. The reason I ask is because the spot price of one ounce gold coins is > 1400$.
Beta testers/Early adopters of the service are not going to be spending large amounts. You need to get a few users on board for a smaller amount(possibly using smaller coins or sliver), then have them provide reviews and build trust in the community. Once trust is established larger orders will start to come in.
A great question. We did not think about moving to Silver until you recommended it with your explanation above. We are going to explore offering Silver as a low-risk entry for individuals to start. We like your approach and agree that with Gold's price heading past $1,400, the turmoil in Ukraine will add to folks seeking refuge in gold. Higher gold prices will make it harder for individuals to test our platform cheaply and with less risk. I will return next week Monday with confirmation that we have Proof of Custody available in Silver that we can take Silver orders as a way for the community to explore in a low-cost low risk manner. Once we have Proof of Custody confirmed, we will create a process to take small silver orders for the community to test. |
|
|
|
Can you explain in which way the Private keys correspond to the ownership of the physical gold stored? Is the gold only redeemable by private key and in no way by your request without being provided that key on behalf of an owner to make the redemption?
Great question and I will add this question and answer to the FAQ, as well. We have one custodian partner with whom this is currently working and for which we are still testing, but our approach is as follows: Step 1: Customer who purchase gold through our platform will supply us a bitcoin address to send their Counterparty Goldcoin. We will assume that they are the owner of the address and they have the private key for that public address. Step 2: We track the public address of each Goldcoin we issue on Counterparty and update our custody database which we share with our custody partner. Step 3: We have provided our custody partner a digital signing application that requires the owner of the public address to digitally sign our redemption verification message with their private key. Only successful signature will allow for the release of the gold and they still need to provide contact information at redemption, as well. Given that we don't have the private key, we cannot sign for the gold ourselves. What do you think? Does this sound reasonable? It sounds promising. How is this going to work if someone sells their Goldcoin on the DEX to another person? It will now be associated with a new Pub/Priv key. Will the application in question use an active Node to verify the Blockchain? I've added your first question to our FAQ. I will add this one as well. Here's our answer to the follow-up and I'll update the FAQ (without code) if you consider this response acceptable. The Counterparty API allows us to query the bitcoin public address for each asset we issue. Therefore, we are always able to tell which address has the asset. We don't even need to hunt through the blockchain. Counterpartyd api command get_asset_info: http://counterpartyd.readthedocs.org/en/latest/API.html#get-asset-info tells us which bitcoin address owns the asset and that address will need to use its private key to successfully sign for redemption. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
