ChromaWallet (colored coins): issue and trade private currencies/stocks/bonds/..

[killerstorm]

That's not so far away from my perspective... What is needed though would be a real world identity of the issuer or a proof of trust record (keyhotee or something) or a trust voting system like in ebay...

Yes, I think colored coins will be a part of bigger infrastructure. There might be companies which offer verification services and things like that.

Most likely it will be very sloppy at first, but eventually we'll see more and more serious and sophisticated players on this market.

[1715436559]

1715436559

[1715436559]

1715436559

[1715436559]

1715436559

[1715436559]

1715436559

[1715436559]

1715436559

[1715436559]

1715436559

[delulo]

That's not so far away from my perspective... What is needed though would be a real world identity of the issuer or a proof of trust record (keyhotee or something) or a trust voting system like in ebay...

Yes, I think colored coins will be a part of bigger infrastructure. There might be companies which offer verification services and things like that.

Most likely it will be very sloppy at first, but eventually we'll see more and more serious and sophisticated players on this market.

So we agree on all that!

What do you think about chances of Mastercoin's approach to colored coins replacing colored coins applied directly to bitcoins?

[killerstorm]

What do you think about chances of Mastercoin's approach to colored coins replacing colored coins applied directly to bitcoins?

Well, I'm not a big fan of Mastercoin, you know, they haven't really thought it through:

• lightweight wallets have to trust payment verification done on servers
• trade requires waiting for several confirmations, and this is slow
• fundamentally incompatible with accepting zero confirmation payments
• incompatible with Bitcoin contracts

I really don't know why would one prefer a platform which is slow, has higher fees and is inconvenient. But then again, they have more money to spend on PR, so who knows.

[delulo]

What do you think about chances of Mastercoin's approach to colored coins replacing colored coins applied directly to bitcoins?

Well, I'm not a big fan of Mastercoin, you know, they haven't really thought it through:

• lightweight wallets have to trust payment verification done on servers
• trade requires waiting for several confirmations, and this is slow
• fundamentally incompatible with accepting zero confirmation payments
• incompatible with Bitcoin contracts

I really don't know why would one prefer a platform which is slow, has higher fees and is inconvenient. But then again, they have more money to spend on PR, so who knows.

would you mind to elaborate the most crucial point(s) a bit in non technical terms? I'm not having a technical background...

[killerstorm]

would you mind to elaborate the most crucial point(s) a bit in non technical terms? I'm not having a technical background...

Hmm, well, in simple terms, colored coins are transferred together with Bitcoins, thus many properties of Bitcoin are also applicable to colored coins.

For example, Bitcoin escrow and dispute mediation contracts: ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation ) also work for colored coins.

On the other hand, Mastercoin works by embedding messages into the blockchain, semantics of those messages is entirely different from semantics of Bitcoin transactions.

1. Lightweight wallets: to check whether Mastercoin payment is correct, one needs to obtain the whole list of messages, and the only reliable way to do that is to scan the whole blockchain starting from the first exodus transaction. This means that client can't be lightweight. On the other hand, to check whether colored coin payment is correct it is enough to check transaction history from genesis transaction of a color up to a transaction in question, it is anticipated that this history is much smaller than the whole blockchain, and it is possible to obtain it from anybody (e.g. a guy who pays you) as client can verify history independently without scanning the blockchain on his own.

2. Bitcoin network ignores conflicting transactions, and thus merchant can accept small-value transaction without confirmations, knowing that double-spending it is hard. On the other hand, Mastercoin transaction conflicts are not recognized by Bitcoin miners, thus double-spending Mastercoins is pretty much trivial, thus vendors shouldn't ever accept them.

3. Bitcoin contracts which I mentioned above can be used to implement secure instantaneous payments: a third party can guarantee lack of double-spends. Same can be used for colored coins. But since Mastercoin doesn't use Bitcoin scripting, it cannot use this approach.

4. Colored coins trading is done through a separate protocol, p2ptrade. Blockchain is used only to fix trades. Being a separate protocol, it is very flexible. On the other hand, Mastecoin trading is a part of the protocol and it needs to be done through a blockchain, and one needs to wait until offer is confirmed before accepting it, confirmations take time.

5. It is also possible to combine p2ptrade with 3rd-party double spend prevention to achieve instantaneous secure trading. No such thing is possible for Mastercoin, they'd have to use fully centralized services to do this.

6. It is possible to do p2ptrade transactions without publishing them on the blockchain for some time, which means that it is possible to do more transactions than Bitcoin network allows with only very limited trust to trading service, and without paying large fees. Again, no such thing is possible for Mastercoin...

To elaborate on the last point, this requires some kind of centralized trading service which will coordinate trading, but it won't be able to steal anyone's coins.

[chris360]

Can you give an estimate of how long it will be before colored coins are ready for commercial use?

[delulo]

would you mind to elaborate the most crucial point(s) a bit in non technical terms? I'm not having a technical background...

Hmm, well, in simple terms, colored coins are transferred together with Bitcoins, thus many properties of Bitcoin are also applicable to colored coins.

For example, Bitcoin escrow and dispute mediation contracts: ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation ) also work for colored coins.

On the other hand, Mastercoin works by embedding messages into the blockchain, semantics of those messages is entirely different from semantics of Bitcoin transactions.

1. Lightweight wallets: to check whether Mastercoin payment is correct, one needs to obtain the whole list of messages, and the only reliable way to do that is to scan the whole blockchain starting from the first exodus transaction. This means that client can't be lightweight. On the other hand, to check whether colored coin payment is correct it is enough to check transaction history from genesis transaction of a color up to a transaction in question, it is anticipated that this history is much smaller than the whole blockchain, and it is possible to obtain it from anybody (e.g. a guy who pays you) as client can verify history independently without scanning the blockchain on his own.

2. Bitcoin network ignores conflicting transactions, and thus merchant can accept small-value transaction without confirmations, knowing that double-spending it is hard. On the other hand, Mastercoin transaction conflicts are not recognized by Bitcoin miners, thus double-spending Mastercoins is pretty much trivial, thus vendors shouldn't ever accept them.

3. Bitcoin contracts which I mentioned above can be used to implement secure instantaneous payments: a third party can guarantee lack of double-spends. Same can be used for colored coins. But since Mastercoin doesn't use Bitcoin scripting, it cannot use this approach.

4. Colored coins trading is done through a separate protocol, p2ptrade. Blockchain is used only to fix trades. Being a separate protocol, it is very flexible. On the other hand, Mastecoin trading is a part of the protocol and it needs to be done through a blockchain, and one needs to wait until offer is confirmed before accepting it, confirmations take time.

5. It is also possible to combine p2ptrade with 3rd-party double spend prevention to achieve instantaneous secure trading. No such thing is possible for Mastercoin, they'd have to use fully centralized services to do this.

6. It is possible to do p2ptrade transactions without publishing them on the blockchain for some time, which means that it is possible to do more transactions than Bitcoin network allows with only very limited trust to trading service, and without paying large fees. Again, no such thing is possible for Mastercoin...

To elaborate on the last point, this requires some kind of centralized trading service which will coordinate trading, but it won't be able to steal anyone's coins.

Thanks for the extended answer!!

And those are nor easily fixable?

If the analysis / criteria are applied to bitshares how does that look?

[killerstorm]

Can you give an estimate of how long it will be before colored coins are ready for commercial use?

I believe that  we'll have a ChromaWallet version which is "good enough" by the end of January.

[killerstorm]

Thanks for the extended answer!!

And those are nor easily fixable?

Yes, I don't think there is a way to fix them without changing fundamental parts of Mastercoin design, and I haven't heard any plans on fixing those.

I mentioned that Mastercoin's decentralized exchange will be slow few months ago, Mastercoin people said that centralized exchanges will be used for faster trading. So most likely that's the plan.

If the analysis / criteria are applied to bitshares how does that look?

BitShares do not use Bitcoin blockchain and won't allow one to use Bitcoin for payments natively.

Otherwise, I haven't studied BitShares in detail and cannot comment on them further.

I believe that native Bitcoin payments are important because Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrencty with significant market liquidity and infrastructure. Say, selling $1M worth of Bitcoin will not change Bitcoin price that much, but that's not true for various alt-coins.

BTW analysis above is true for Counterparty, as Counterparty is similar to Mastercoin.

[NanoAkron]

Can you give an estimate of how long it will be before colored coins are ready for commercial use?

I believe that  we'll have a ChromaWallet version which is "good enough" by the end of January.

Once coloured coins become standardised (and are we going to have issues with the UK/US spelling of 'color/colour'?), do you think BTC stock exchanges (Havelock, Cryptostocks) will be encouraged to use them?

[Peter Todd]

Thanks for the extended answer!!

And those are nor easily fixable?

Yes, I don't think there is a way to fix them without changing fundamental parts of Mastercoin design, and I haven't heard any plans on fixing those.

FWIW one of the things Mastercoin hired me to do is exactly that.

[killerstorm]

Once coloured coins become standardised (and are we going to have issues with the UK/US spelling of 'color/colour'?),

We'll just call them chromatokens.

do you think BTC stock exchanges (Havelock, Cryptostocks) will be encouraged to use them?

Well, I hope so. Centralized exchanges do not need to change much, just issue colored coins for each asset (under the hood) and give people an ability to withdraw to other exchange or other wallet.

This removes the need for passthroughs and provide an easy path of migration in case exchange closes down. Otherwise, people can just keeping using centralized exchanges if that is what they prefer.

About a year ago one person actually proposed abandoning p2ptrade and promoting colored coins as a mean of security transfers among exchanges. But exchanges looked very confident back then, they thought that having ownership records available to issuer is enough of a contingency plan.

[TKeenan]

We'll just call them chromatokens.

Just call them 'DOA' Dead on Arrival.  

There have been 3 posts here in three days - and 33% of those posts are about the work some guy is doing at Mastercoin.  Let's face KillerShitStorm, ChromaCrap is a failed project.  You can keep carrying this torch a long time, but Mastercoin is taken some firm roots this coming month with their new DEx - and Chroma is still talking about a client coming soon.  "which is "good enough" by the end of January" - Well, it's the end of January and no sight of anything but more delays.  What's up?

You're a Martyr for the cause - but the cause has long been lost.  

One idea: you could go over to Mastercoin and fling some shit around over there.  That should bolster the technical prospects of your idea some more.  Oh wait, you already tried that and it didn't work.  No worries, try it again.  

[mcgravier]

Hate from mastercoin fanatics means you are doing good work, killerstorm. Keep it up

[TKeenan]

Hate from mastercoin fanatics means you are doing good work, killerstorm. Keep it up

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - KillerShit frequently goes to Mastercoin just to spread his FUD.  If he'd spent more time coding Chroma rather than flinging shit on the MSC threads, chroma might actually be working by now.

[ShireSilver]

Centralized exchanges do not need to change much, just issue colored coins for each asset (under the hood) and give people an ability to withdraw to other exchange or other wallet.

This removes the need for passthroughs ...

One use case for passthroughs is stock splits. Using another color for a split-through instead of trying to add code to allow for splits on existing colors would help keep things simple (while admittedly adding a little need to trust the third-party passthrough issuer).

[FrictionlessCoin]

Hate from mastercoin fanatics means you are doing good work, killerstorm. Keep it up

+1  Keep up the good work.  Ignore the overly zealous coin investors.

[NanoAkron]

Centralized exchanges do not need to change much, just issue colored coins for each asset (under the hood) and give people an ability to withdraw to other exchange or other wallet.

This removes the need for passthroughs ...

One use case for passthroughs is stock splits. Using another color for a split-through instead of trying to add code to allow for splits on existing colors would help keep things simple (while admittedly adding a little need to trust the third-party passthrough issuer).

I like this idea, but the passthrough should be signed by the exchange or the company behind the stock because that's the only way to guarantee its trustworthiness.

[killerstorm]

One use case for passthroughs is stock splits. Using another color for a split-through instead of trying to add code to allow for splits on existing colors would help keep things simple (while admittedly adding a little need to trust the third-party passthrough issuer).

We now have coloring schemes which allow very high degrees of divisibility.

For example, you can create 1 billion shares, and make each share divisible into 1 million parts.

[TKeenan]

For example, you can create 1 billion shares, and make each share divisible into 1 million parts.

Genius, pure genius.  And how many parts are the million parts divisible by?  Do you have a diploma in mathematics?