MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”

[adamstgBit]

I can buy some today, but i won't be able to play with them until you have implemented the client.

are you just starting this implantation?
how long do you think it will take to get this ready?
will it be open source?


right now this is me:

That is a very good question. It depends a lot on how much money I raise. Huge funds would imply I could move pretty quick. I'm not counting on that though. I'm anticipating a pretty small investment from the community, and a much slower rate of progress (see the risks document)

Definitely open source.

Also, I made that meme! Did you find it in my signature?

lol, yup 

SOMEONE SENT YOU 16BTC!!!

[dacoinminster]

SOMEONE SENT YOU 16BTC!!!

Holy crap! People are actually sending me money!
http://blockchain.info/address/1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P

A LOT of money.

Holy holy crap batman.

[adamstgBit]

Holy crap! People are actually sending me money!
http://blockchain.info/address/1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P

A LOT of money.

Holy holy crap batman.

 

i'm sure you'll do very well, this idea is gr8!

[NewLiberty]

Great progress, keep up the good work on it.  This could be a HUGE addition in many directions.  Thank you for your work on it so far.

[Voodah]

Interesting.

[dacoinminster]

Have you done any modelling with various child currency parameters to see how well they might track the desired asset, and how healthy the escrow fund remains?

Best question yet.

I have thought about this endlessly. You can't begin to imagine how many nights I laid awake thinking about this. My first proposal had a much more complicated method of providing stability, but I think I've boiled it down to the essence of what is needed.

I actually plan on running some experiments with unsustainable currencies (where the data stream the currency is based on just keeps publishing bigger numbers), just to see how long they last and how they die. I'm hoping that will help tune the parameters for real currencies.

[cbeast]

This is the type of thing that if it works, will be duplicated ad nauseum with many alt "Exodus" addresses. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It will help take Bitcoin to the next level quickly.

[dacoinminster]

This is the type of thing that if it works, will be duplicated ad nauseum with many alt "Exodus" addresses. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It will help take Bitcoin to the next level quickly.

Very true. Hopefully I can provide the features people are asking for fast enough to stay in front 

[byronbb]

Ripple killer?  This is way better than any alt-coin that is for sure.

[jimbobway]

So a mastercoin transaction will take 10 bitcoin confirmations?

[dacoinminster]

So a mastercoin transaction will take 10 bitcoin confirmations?

10? The number of confirmations should be the same as any other bitcoin transactions, especially if sendmany is used.

[Luckybit]

Excuse my ignorance but so far all screams scam. So it took you 2 years to invent this scheme that involves us sending money to your address and "many devs" support your scheme but they don't show their support here?
maybe not scam but I will just watch for now.

I wouldn't say that any bitcoin devs have explicitly endorsed this, just that I sent a preview of the spec to several of them, and the ones that responded were encouraging.

Can we use electrum or does it have to be the Bitcoin wallet with a blockchain?

[TraderTimm]

Is the encoding for this protocol going to have an adverse resource impact on the blockchain, and by extension, the time it takes new users to acquire the entire thing before being able to use the official bitcoin client?

Reference:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1438/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-extra-data-can-be-put-into-blocks-via-scripts

I think I understand the direction, but I'm wary of the net effect.

[bytemaster]

I have debated whether or not to respond to this thread, but it seems like you are getting a lot of positive reviews so I am writing to provide some alternative opinions and explain how / why this system will not work.  I do this as a favor to you because I previously paid people on this forum over $1200 to show me where I went wrong with some of my early idea on how to create GoldCoins.  Reading and responding to your paper represents a significant investment of my time into your ideas and I am providing my feedback for free.

The #1 problem with your system is that it is not decentralized and therefore using the blockchain only increases costs while providing little benefit.   The number of times you mention relying on 'trusted' parties is entirely against the ethos of trust-free currency.   The mere possibility of a 'bank run' shows the shaky foundation.  Once you depend upon 'trust' and 'issuers' then you might as well use a system like egold... and we all know how that turned out.  For that matter, you could use Ripple!

I would like to address some major economic fallacies:

1) Depending upon a public oracle for pricing information is not economically valid means of facilitating trades in your GoldShares vs GoldCoins market because it fails to consider that GoldShares and GoldCoins are entirely different things in the economy and valued by individuals uniquely and independently from Gold even if the price is highly correlated.    

2) Assuming that controlling the supply instantly controls the price.   The FED has doubled the US money supply but prices still haven't factored this in.    Next, this GoldShare supply is regulated by an external feed from an entirely different market.   Note how different prices are between BitStamp and Gox and they are trading in very similar assets GoxBtc/GoxUSD  vs BitStampBtc/BitStampUSD.   Why can't BitStamp arbitrarily operate their exchange based on a Mt. Gox feed?   The reason is something fundamental:  all exchanges of value at all times must be based upon voluntary consent.   Historical price data (even just milliseconds old) is never a valid substitute for voluntary exchanges by people making an assessment of the value of the assets being traded.   Allowing a 3rd party to 'price fix' something via inflation/deflation is exactly what FIAT money is.

3) You have apparently failed to address all of the competing ideas in your white paper or participate in community discussions on how to create peer to peer exchanges and crypto-assets like GoldCoins.    If you had you could have saved yourself a lot of time.

Now that I have said all of this, I would encourage you to read the BitShares white paper and then come back here and explain where I have missed something because I believe that more minds dedicated to the problem will result in better solutions.  In summary, I have also created BitGold that can be traded against BitBTC and does everything your system attempts to do with the following differences:

1) No trusted oracles or external data feeds  
2) No trusted parties at all (entirely trust free)
3) Pays dividends
4) Enables trust-free put/call options against any BitAsset
5) Addresses scalability issues with Bitcoin.  




 

[dacoinminster]

Is the encoding for this protocol going to have an adverse resource impact on the blockchain, and by extension, the time it takes new users to acquire the entire thing before being able to use the official bitcoin client?

Reference:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1438/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-extra-data-can-be-put-into-blocks-via-scripts

I think I understand the direction, but I'm wary of the net effect.

Yes! A successful MasterCoin will give the regular bitcoin devs terrible migraines, as the block-chain explodes in size even faster. However, I've done my best to make sure that most transactions will be transfers of value, which is what bitcoin was designed to do.

[dacoinminster]

I have debated whether or not to respond to this thread, but it seems like you are getting a lot of positive reviews so I am writing to provide some alternative opinions and explain how / why this system will not work.  I do this as a favor to you because I previously paid people on this forum over $1200 to show me where I went wrong with some of my early idea on how to create GoldCoins.  Reading and responding to your paper represents a significant investment of my time into your ideas and I am providing my feedback for free.

The #1 problem with your system is that it is not decentralized and therefore using the blockchain only increases costs while providing little benefit.   The number of times you mention relying on 'trusted' parties is entirely against the ethos of trust-free currency.   The mere possibility of a 'bank run' shows the shaky foundation.  Once you depend upon 'trust' and 'issuers' then you might as well use a system like egold... and we all know how that turned out.  For that matter, you could use Ripple!

I would like to address some major economic fallacies:

1) Depending upon a public oracle for pricing information is not economically valid means of facilitating trades in your GoldShares vs GoldCoins market because it fails to consider that GoldShares and GoldCoins are entirely different things in the economy and valued by individuals uniquely and independently from Gold even if the price is highly correlated.    

2) Assuming that controlling the supply instantly controls the price.   The FED has doubled the US money supply but prices still haven't factored this in.    Next, this GoldShare supply is regulated by an external feed from an entirely different market.   Note how different prices are between BitStamp and Gox and they are trading in very similar assets GoxBtc/GoxUSD  vs BitStampBtc/BitStampUSD.   Why can't BitStamp arbitrarily operate their exchange based on a Mt. Gox feed?   The reason is something fundamental:  all exchanges of value at all times must be based upon voluntary consent.   Historical price data (even just milliseconds old) is never a valid substitute for voluntary exchanges by people making an assessment of the value of the assets being traded.   Allowing a 3rd party to 'price fix' something via inflation/deflation is exactly what FIAT money is.

3) You have apparently failed to address all of the competing ideas in your white paper or participate in community discussions on how to create peer to peer exchanges and crypto-assets like GoldCoins.    If you had you could have saved yourself a lot of time.

Now that I have said all of this, I would encourage you to read the BitShares white paper and then come back here and explain where I have missed something because I believe that more minds dedicated to the problem will result in better solutions.  In summary, I have also created BitGold that can be traded against BitBTC and does everything your system attempts to do with the following differences:

1) No trusted oracles or external data feeds  
2) No trusted parties at all (entirely trust free)
3) Pays dividends
4) Enables trust-free put/call options against any BitAsset
5) Addresses scalability issues with Bitcoin.

I think perhaps you are replying based on the previous version of my paper?

[bytemaster]

I have debated whether or not to respond to this thread, but it seems like you are getting a lot of positive reviews so I am writing to provide some alternative opinions and explain how / why this system will not work.  I do this as a favor to you because I previously paid people on this forum over $1200 to show me where I went wrong with some of my early idea on how to create GoldCoins.  Reading and responding to your paper represents a significant investment of my time into your ideas and I am providing my feedback for free.

The #1 problem with your system is that it is not decentralized and therefore using the blockchain only increases costs while providing little benefit.   The number of times you mention relying on 'trusted' parties is entirely against the ethos of trust-free currency.   The mere possibility of a 'bank run' shows the shaky foundation.  Once you depend upon 'trust' and 'issuers' then you might as well use a system like egold... and we all know how that turned out.  For that matter, you could use Ripple!

I would like to address some major economic fallacies:

1) Depending upon a public oracle for pricing information is not economically valid means of facilitating trades in your GoldShares vs GoldCoins market because it fails to consider that GoldShares and GoldCoins are entirely different things in the economy and valued by individuals uniquely and independently from Gold even if the price is highly correlated.    

2) Assuming that controlling the supply instantly controls the price.   The FED has doubled the US money supply but prices still haven't factored this in.    Next, this GoldShare supply is regulated by an external feed from an entirely different market.   Note how different prices are between BitStamp and Gox and they are trading in very similar assets GoxBtc/GoxUSD  vs BitStampBtc/BitStampUSD.   Why can't BitStamp arbitrarily operate their exchange based on a Mt. Gox feed?   The reason is something fundamental:  all exchanges of value at all times must be based upon voluntary consent.   Historical price data (even just milliseconds old) is never a valid substitute for voluntary exchanges by people making an assessment of the value of the assets being traded.   Allowing a 3rd party to 'price fix' something via inflation/deflation is exactly what FIAT money is.

3) You have apparently failed to address all of the competing ideas in your white paper or participate in community discussions on how to create peer to peer exchanges and crypto-assets like GoldCoins.    If you had you could have saved yourself a lot of time.

Now that I have said all of this, I would encourage you to read the BitShares white paper and then come back here and explain where I have missed something because I believe that more minds dedicated to the problem will result in better solutions.  In summary, I have also created BitGold that can be traded against BitBTC and does everything your system attempts to do with the following differences:

1) No trusted oracles or external data feeds  
2) No trusted parties at all (entirely trust free)
3) Pays dividends
4) Enables trust-free put/call options against any BitAsset
5) Addresses scalability issues with Bitcoin.

I think perhaps you are replying based on the previous version of my paper?

Nope, the most recent paper.

[dacoinminster]

I have debated whether or not to respond to this thread, but it seems like you are getting a lot of positive reviews so I am writing to provide some alternative opinions and explain how / why this system will not work.  I do this as a favor to you because I previously paid people on this forum over $1200 to show me where I went wrong with some of my early idea on how to create GoldCoins.  Reading and responding to your paper represents a significant investment of my time into your ideas and I am providing my feedback for free.

The #1 problem with your system is that it is not decentralized and therefore using the blockchain only increases costs while providing little benefit.   The number of times you mention relying on 'trusted' parties is entirely against the ethos of trust-free currency.   The mere possibility of a 'bank run' shows the shaky foundation.  Once you depend upon 'trust' and 'issuers' then you might as well use a system like egold... and we all know how that turned out.  For that matter, you could use Ripple!

I would like to address some major economic fallacies:

1) Depending upon a public oracle for pricing information is not economically valid means of facilitating trades in your GoldShares vs GoldCoins market because it fails to consider that GoldShares and GoldCoins are entirely different things in the economy and valued by individuals uniquely and independently from Gold even if the price is highly correlated.    

2) Assuming that controlling the supply instantly controls the price.   The FED has doubled the US money supply but prices still haven't factored this in.    Next, this GoldShare supply is regulated by an external feed from an entirely different market.   Note how different prices are between BitStamp and Gox and they are trading in very similar assets GoxBtc/GoxUSD  vs BitStampBtc/BitStampUSD.   Why can't BitStamp arbitrarily operate their exchange based on a Mt. Gox feed?   The reason is something fundamental:  all exchanges of value at all times must be based upon voluntary consent.   Historical price data (even just milliseconds old) is never a valid substitute for voluntary exchanges by people making an assessment of the value of the assets being traded.   Allowing a 3rd party to 'price fix' something via inflation/deflation is exactly what FIAT money is.

3) You have apparently failed to address all of the competing ideas in your white paper or participate in community discussions on how to create peer to peer exchanges and crypto-assets like GoldCoins.    If you had you could have saved yourself a lot of time.

Now that I have said all of this, I would encourage you to read the BitShares white paper and then come back here and explain where I have missed something because I believe that more minds dedicated to the problem will result in better solutions.  In summary, I have also created BitGold that can be traded against BitBTC and does everything your system attempts to do with the following differences:

1) No trusted oracles or external data feeds  
2) No trusted parties at all (entirely trust free)
3) Pays dividends
4) Enables trust-free put/call options against any BitAsset
5) Addresses scalability issues with Bitcoin.

I think perhaps you are replying based on the previous version of my paper?

Nope, the most recent paper.

OK - because the concept of "GoldShares" are from the last version - I dumped that idea for something simpler in the specification.

I have followed your work on BitShares with great interest, but as you can see, I'm taking things in a different direction

Thanks for your thoughtful input.

[bytemaster]

"The price of GoldCoins is decided by the balance of supply and demand. Since we
can’t control the demand for GoldCoins, we must control the supply."

You are right, I read your old paper.  I just reviewed your latest paper and it suffers the same problems:  oracles and trusted escrow agencies that attempt (and will fail) to control the price by controlling supply.

[notme]

We're supposed to send you (dacoinminister) Bitcoins in advance to motivate you to finish this protocol and release it? What if you decide that it's more profitable to keep the Bitcoins and not release anything?

Sure you can say "there's a bigger profit motive for me to develop the protocol because then I'll get richer" but that's just assuming that you won't take everyone's coins and run (instant 100% profit with very little effort). You haven't released a client or source code. You control everything, and "investors" control nothing. Rationally I don't see how this can be considered anything but a scam.

There are no "real" "MasterCoins" until there is an open source client and a way of generating them that dacoinminister doesn't personally control. This just reeks of trying to exploit greedy people who are sad they were late to the Bitcoin game.

This is a legitimate concern. Everyone will have to decide how much they want to trust me, if at all.

That's really the best response you could come up with to my post? I basically verbally eviscerated your project and all you can say is "yeah you're right" (more or less)?

You must just be hoping for a few really stupid, rich, and greedy people who will dump a few Bitcoin into any project that comes along without reading.

THIS IS A SCAM, EVERYONE

Have you read anything?  He has clearly put quite a bit of work into this already.  You might be right, and thank you for voicing this possibility.  However, now that the naive have been warned, let's not derail this thread.

@dacoinminster: In order to succeed as an open source project leader, you will need to keep this in mind: http://youtu.be/ZSFDm3UYkeE