The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face.

[caveden]

Actually I meant what I said.

Have you tried libertyreserve.com lately?

I never tried it.
Wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the link.

[Chaoskampf]

beautiful

[BitDreams]

bookmarked.

[waxwing]

From that pastebin:

"9. Alice's Escrow awakens in 1-5 minutes, and starts periodically checking (via SEPA calls) to see if BOB_SEPA has received the Euros. If so, she automatically releases the Escrow to Jorg's silver account on OT."

This escrow must be able to check the banking transaction via SEPA calls, and I suppose without a formal contract with banks, he won't be able to listen to those calls

Just like a gateway in ripple, this is the point of weakness for all the P2P exchange design: That escrow/gateway must be able to communicate with banks through an authorized channel and that channel is controlled by banks

The core problem is, all of the exchanges today still operate inside a banking framework (the exchange must have a bank account to operate). <snip>

This.

And further,point 11 in the pastebin on silver/euro SEPA:

11. If Alice disputes (claiming the SEPA transfer was never received by Bob) then the escrow splits the silver grams between Alice and Jorg.

This is not a fair resolution method, is it? If the escrow has no way of knowing, then Alice is always incentivised to dispute.

Unless the bank wire is publically verifiable as well as irreversible, the fiat part of these exchange models always seems to be broken.

I believe dansmith has the essential elements of the solution in the discussion we've been having here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.0

I'll give you the precis as that's a lot of reading. In case of dispute, the BUYER of fiat (not the seller) can be requested to run an open source plugin that reroutes their banking SSL session through a proxy (after they've logged in), the proxy can be the escrow agent or another user of the P2P software, the encrypted data is dumped and using the master key for the session, the data can be read such that it's verified that the fiat buyer did/did not receive the fiat funds (the fiat buyer only needs to show their bank statement for the period). Thus it can be made public knowledge whether the fiat was transferred or not.

Agree fully with oakpacific in that digital signatures, which would be trivial for banks to implement, on bank statements would immediately solve the problem. However banks are only using cryptography for the privacy functionality - they are not interested in non-repudiation of messages, even though it would be helpful to customers for a lot more than Bitcoin, it's not useful to them so they don't care. But I see that discussion as a tangent since we are not going to change bankers minds, we just have to get rid of their archaic system.

[fellowtraveler]

11. If Alice disputes (claiming the SEPA transfer was never received by Bob) then the escrow splits the silver grams between Alice and Jorg.

This is not a fair resolution method, is it? If the escrow has no way of knowing, then Alice is always incentivised to dispute.

Actually it was just an example. Since smart contracts in OT contain scripted clauses, this sort of logic is customizable. Therefore the market will be able to determine which contracts work best for which purposes. (And create the contracts they need.)

If it's completely impossible for Alice / Bob to verify whether a SEPA transfer has been successful, then reputation systems (I believe) will fill the gap. (Though I would think that Bob would have access to an API to verify whether he received the funds.)

For example, instead of routing your transfers through "any ole person" you might prefer to route them through a more trusted party, such as a "gateway" (to use the Ripple nomenclature) -- although in OT that would not be someone issuing credit, but rather, someone buying/selling coins or colored coins. Perhaps 'Jorg' is just one of such services. Also on OT, that Jorg will not be operating a server but rather, using one, just like any other user.

Perhaps someday soon, 'Jorg' will just be a bank himself.

[waxwing]

11. If Alice disputes (claiming the SEPA transfer was never received by Bob) then the escrow splits the silver grams between Alice and Jorg.

This is not a fair resolution method, is it? If the escrow has no way of knowing, then Alice is always incentivised to dispute.

Actually it was just an example. Since smart contracts in OT contain scripted clauses, this sort of logic is customizable. Therefore the market will be able to determine which contracts work best for which purposes. (And create the contracts they need.)

If it's completely impossible for Alice / Bob to verify whether a SEPA transfer has been successful, then reputation systems (I believe) will fill the gap. (Though I would think that Bob would have access to an API to verify whether he received the funds.)

For example, instead of routing your transfers through "any ole person" you might prefer to route them through a more trusted party, such as a "gateway" (to use the Ripple nomenclature) -- although in OT that would not be someone issuing credit, but rather, someone buying/selling coins or colored coins. Perhaps 'Jorg' is just one of such services. Also on OT, that Jorg will not be operating a server but rather, using one, just like any other user.

Perhaps someday soon, 'Jorg' will just be a bank himself.

Yes, I've thought about this stuff before. Reputation systems are good for lots of little transactions, but there is a subtle but important problem with this approach.

First, decentralization always breaks if the cornerstone of the system is trust in individuals/nodes/people. That's exactly how the banking system came about. People with more and more money, and more and more power, get more of the money and power because they're the only ones you trust to keep your money. People's trust concentrates in those "nodes". This is what we have to avoid in our P2P solution.

We need to make it so the trust is in the protocol itself. This requires public verifiability of transactions.

It's good that the contract is customisable, but if that ends up meaning that we only transact with trustworthy nodes, we get centralization.

[fellowtraveler]

This is a good point, and ultimately the answer will lie in what kind of information can be queried from SEPA and other banking APIs.

[waxwing]

This is a good point, and ultimately the answer will lie in what kind of information can be queried from SEPA and other banking APIs.

Yep. You might be interested in what we're discussing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.new#new

[fellowtraveler]

This is a good point, and ultimately the answer will lie in what kind of information can be queried from SEPA and other banking APIs.

Yep. You might be interested in what we're discussing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.new#new

Looks great! I will definitely bookmark it.

[enric]

Ok our big goal its to descentralize absolutely our alternative economic system.

we have bitcoin + opentransactions + bitmessage,

but i think that we need two more pieces to complete this alternative system, because the global power system its attacking
the form that we change dolars/euro/... to bitcoins; and the fiat as a virtual currency are always connected to a nominal bank account controlled by the central banks.

1. A home version of bitcoin ATM.

Yes, perhaps sounds crazy,, but if we want to change the world, we need to think also about this crazy possibilities. A system by the way people could diposit fiat currencies to exchange for bitcoins from their home. So, a really p2p alternative to the banking system.

I imagine a little atm machine  connect with your cumputer where you put your bills, in order to be changed in the p2p exchange. When fiat is exchanged for bitcoins,
the atm system, blocks your possibilities to get the bills.


2. A p2p courier system to do anonymous bills exchange

To complete the bitcoin ATM home version, we need a p2p courier, that move the bills between diferents homes to adapt the exchanges between their p2p fiat accounts...Perhaps a cryptografic system could link the courier with the home ATM in order to do segure transactions...


So, i mean... we need to pierce the anonymity and decentralization to the physical world!

If people are interested perhaps its possible to create another post about this questions!

[Choroid Plexus]

2. A p2p courier system to do anonymous bills exchange

To complete the bitcoin ATM home version, we need a p2p courier, that move the bills between diferents homes to adapt the exchanges between their p2p fiat accounts...

Nice, that made me think of this old thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6279.0

[soma13]

I have a quarter of a bitcoin lost in a ripple/gateway transaction.  If I get it back I'm donating it to Open-Transactions.  I think ripple is great.  It's still a bit beta, but it works pretty well.  And I think it has a reasonable likelihood of adoption (I think its centralized nature will appeal to the establishment, and it has a bit of a marketing machine as it if a for profit company).  OT is so much better though.

I've made a number of attempts at getting OT running over the last 6 months.  The last time I was mostly successful, but still couldn't connect to the digitalis server.  I don't remember what the problem was.  I think I was unable to register a nym.  This is great news about federated servers, but at the moment I'd just like to see one or two running stably.

[fellowtraveler]

FYI the digitalis server has started using usage tokens -- so you will not be able to transact on that server without first contacting knotwork and asking him to give some usage tokens to your Nym.

I suggest for testing purposes, you run the localhost server (or contact knotwork and get some usage tokens.)

[datz]

Unfortunately, this is not closer to the singularity, but farther away from it than Ripple. Why would we go to offchain transactions with more moving parts when we have a far superior fully integrated platform? Ripple does more than just solve the "multiple currency" transaction problem - it provides a more efficient validation and confirmation ledger platform. Mining is unnecessary and inefficient in the long run. We will see higher and higher transaction fees as Bitcoin adoption increases if the block size does not increase. With so many systems and so many moving parts and bottlenecks, a Bitmessage/Open Transaction/Bitcoin build appears inferior from a Universal standpoint to an integrated Ripple platform. 

[datz]

It's almost like - since Bitcoin is not going to scale well without transaction fees and wasted energy let's just keep building on top of the flawed protocol and start shifting load to more abstract layers. The problem here is that once a lower layer fails all the upper layers fail as well. You are now making the machine more complex than it needs to be - more inefficient with more moving parts. I now have a lot more trouble programming for and around this machine and building on it more since I need to take into account more moving parts, each which has a chance of breaking. This is not good engineering. Good engineering is fixing all the core problems and embracing the new system that you built, not building a house on top of a cracked, unstable foundation, but replacing the foundation.

[kodo]

Lol yea bitmessage is cool

[datz]

My family has been building houses and shopping centers for many generations. If we reexamined a foundation we had poured, a foundation we had put blood and sweat and tears into, and that foundation was flawed, we repoured. While it is tempting to continue to build on that flawed foundation, perhaps add some arches and redistribute the weight of the house horizontally, the building would eventually fail. I tell you what, our houses and buildings have withstood the test of time. Don't let crypto-currencies die by building on a flawed foundation and ruining the reputation of crypto-currency. Break up the concrete, recycle that concrete, and transfer that value of the concrete and the experience to a new foundation.

[Ichthyo]

Mining is unnecessary and inefficient in the long run.

Oh yeah, sure. The traditional banking industry did splendidly without mining.
Thus mining is unnecessary. Just trust your favourite banker, or payment network company.
If in doubt, use a legal system to enforce the trust.
Simple and sweet.

[BitcoinAshley]

Sorry Datz, the bullshit about your family's blood, sweat, and tears and foundations and all that... didn't do it for me.

I know you were going for the whole "emotional persuasion" job but it did not bring tears to my eyes.

I love how you talk about bitcoin's scalability as if what you're saying is self-evident and no one has ever discussed scalability issues before, or that everyone has accepted that it is not scalable. This couldn't be further from the truth.  I hope that lots of silly newbies read your post and believe what you say about Bitcoin's scalability, so that in the future they will eventually be corrected and will learn a thing or two about critical thinking. You are doing good in the world without even realizing it!

Scalability will be a piece of cake with Bitcoin. Sure, the protocol isn't anywhere near perfect right now, and there are still some projects to be finished before we're there (blockchain pruning, fully validating lite node that requires 0 trust and 0 centralization, etc) but these are all concepts that have been fleshed out and just need more "blood sweat and tears" dev time just like your family building those shopping centers. This is software in beta testing. We are STILL building the foundation, of a type of structure that has never been built before in the history of mankind, a technological and engineering marvel. Ripple? Ripple might have a few problems sorted out but they are not even anywhere close to decentralized, not open source; I won't even consider glancing at Ripple until it is both! LR just had millions of dollars of client funds seized. Some of them ML and nefarious criminals, but some honest folks. Ripple could be shut down and all client funds seized, in its current state. Let's not pretend we're comparing anything even remotely similar.

However, let's NOT let this turn into a RIPPLE VS BITCOIN thread (you started it ). Take your propaganda  elsewhere (and yes, it reads exactly like propaganda, cut out the blood sweat and tears hard working brick and mortar strong foundation bullshit, it sounds like you're speaking on a political commercial targeted to a group of 50-75 year old American men in the steelworker's union)

[datz]

Sorry Datz, the bullshit about your family's blood, sweat, and tears and foundations and all that... didn't do it for me.

I know you were going for the whole "emotional persuasion" job but it did not bring tears to my eyes.

Actually I was not going for ethos or pathos here, but logos. Logically, I would not build on a fundamentally flawed structure, no matter how much work I had put into it, no matter how much I was emotionally invested in it.

I love how you talk about bitcoin's scalability as if what you're saying is self-evident and no one has ever discussed scalability issues before, or that everyone has accepted that it is not scalable. This couldn't be further from the truth.  I hope that lots of silly newbies read your post and believe what you say about Bitcoin's scalability, so that in the future they will eventually be corrected and will learn a thing or two about critical thinking. You are doing good in the world without even realizing it!

Scalability of the Bitcoin protocol is an issue. This is why we have implemented transaction minimums in client updates in response to Satoshi's dice and transaction fees. The Bitcoin protocol can only handle so many transactions per second and requires inefficient mining to facilitate transactions which opens up a vulnerability unto itself. This is why we have posts advocating "off chain" transactions. Any third party can buy 51% of the computational power and wreak havoc. Bitcoin requires a balance of opposing forces and may easily break under the right stress or the right conditions. There is always a tradeoff.

However, let's NOT let this turn into a RIPPLE VS BITCOIN thread (you started it ). Take your propaganda  elsewhere (and yes, it reads exactly like propaganda, cut out the blood sweat and tears hard working brick and mortar strong foundation bullshit, it sounds like you're speaking on a political commercial targeted to a group of 50-75 year old American men in the steelworker's union)

Contributors mentioned Ripple and the death of Ripple over ten times on this thread. I did not start this line of thought. I am talking to every bitcoiner and miner who is emotionally attached to the protocol.