Colored coins VS Mastercoins - Which one is better?

[birkomester]

Mastercoin all the way

[1714006843]

1714006843

[1714006843]

1714006843

[1714006843]

1714006843

[1714006843]

1714006843

[1714006843]

1714006843

[prophetx]

Mastercoin all the way

Haha.

Anyone care to comment on the difference between bitshares and mastercoin?  I just don't have the time to look into it myself at the moment.

[bluemeanie1]

Mastercoin all the way

Haha.

Anyone care to comment on the difference between bitshares and mastercoin?  I just don't have the time to look into it myself at the moment.

I get the clear impression that practically no one here is actually reading these papers, or even has the background knowledge to determine if they are valid or not.

[Luckybit]

Something could happen to the other blockchains. I don't see what you mean by "politically attacked" as Bitcoin is decentralized and therefor very hard to attack politically, just look at piracy.

Let's say governments decide to centralize the mining function in the Bitcoin blockchain and gain control of it? That is just one attack. There could be exploits as well against Bitcoin, DDOS against the blockchain, or political attacks all which would stop Bitcoin but wouldn't stop Mastercoin. Mastercoin could work over any blockchain which means if something happens to Bitcoin or if Bitcoin somehow proves itself not to be technologically superior then Mastercoin wont be held up.

For instance the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE problem will be an issue with ColoredCoin but is not an issue with Mastercoin or Bitshares.

I just think it is wise to take advantage of the power the bitcoin infrastructure which is the largest cryptocurrency protocol by a long shot and it doesnt look like its going to stop anytime soon, but you are right, it is wise to look at all the alternatives[/b]

Of course, but it's also wise not to be limited to any specific infrastructure. We don't want Bitcoin to become too big to fail.

I dont get what you are trying to say here. Mastercoin sounds more and more like an altcoin to me the more I hear people try to "pitch" it. The whole thing about Colored Coins IS about setting a certain amount of satoshis as being worth (in the case of a company share) something concrete in which the p2p market sets the price by how the company is doing and through its business plans.

But how is the price of a satoshi concrete when the price of a Bitcoin is rising, while Bitcoins are being generated continuously, there is no way you can tell me what the price of a satoshi will be and it has nothing to do with the businesses behind it. We don't know because of other variables like mining, influence from institutional investment, speculators, government policies, there are a lot of reasons why we don't know what the price of a satoshi is.

Mastercoin is a messaging protocol layer built on top of a blockchain (the Bitcoin blockchain at this time). It's more than a mere coin. It's an economy onto itself while a coin is just a unit of account.

The beauty of Mastercoin is what you'll be enabled to do with it. If ColoredCoin enables us to do all the same stuff then we'll just have both. But at this point in time Mastercoin has the momentum and is in the lead. It's not like all of these solutions will implement all their features at the same time so one will be first in a certain area making us use that while another will be first in another area making us use that. We will have to use them all if they market themselves right and compete on innovation.

Trying to use propaganda, or claim that Mastercoin can't work, I don't see that. Not only do I see Mastercoin as being potentially successful but I can already point to some successes. When it can do what we all want it to do then it will dramatically improve the economy for us all and that includes the people who promote ColoredCoins.

ColoredCoins are not a bad idea, but if it were such a powerful and elegant idea then where is the proof? Where is the decentralized exchange with smart property and user currencies? Talk is cheap. Produce the code.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Bitcoin was interesting because it had ZERO TRUST, not only at the technology level, but the financial level as well.  Nothing was BACKING it.

That's not lost on me... However I think there is still enough going for the system even if we use it to represent backed assets. Of course, there may be better ways to achieve the goal.

[bluemeanie1]

Bitcoin was interesting because it had ZERO TRUST, not only at the technology level, but the financial level as well.  Nothing was BACKING it.

That's not lost on me... However I think there is still enough going for the system even if we use it to represent backed assets. Of course, there may be better ways to achieve the goal.

I think many in this neck of the woods can't see the forest for the trees.  They're stuck in Bitcoin methodologies when clearly we've departed from the problems Bitcoin attempted to solve(that of 'zero trust').  The solution to these problems is very simple, does not require expensive mining, and can provide a basis for a lot of powerful features.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing

[TraderTimm]

In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.

So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.

When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.

[FTWbitcoinFTW]

Trust the dev team  to fix all those little minor problems.

Money for bountys is now $1.7M...

Before end of the contest, you'll see amazing feature coming !

[bluemeanie1]

In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.

So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.

When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.

The project is not very technically rigorous.  I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet.

[Luckybit]

In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.

So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.

When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.

The project is not very technically rigorous.  I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet.

Rather than complain in a snobbish manner about everyone else's project why don't you crowd fund your own project so we can contribute to and work on your more rigorous technical solution?

I look forward to seeing the source code.

My opinion on the centralization problem is that the purpose behind decentralization is to protect the protocol and participants from compromise. Bittorrent is sufficiently decentralized even though websites such as the PirateBay are used. This is because as soon as one of these websites are shut down another can replace it.

Mirroring can solve a lot of problems. The solution used by Linux distributions (repositories) can solve it, the point is you can have sufficient decentralization using the web. Whether or not they will find the right balance is yet to be seen, but it is a balance between convenience, usability and decentralization.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Don't waste any time reading that - colored coins is a dead concept now.  Master is much bigger already, has much higher ceiling, has money in hand, does everything CC does, but better.  

It's far from being dead. Colored Coins is already implemented in Nxt. Right now I'm reading a specification of a decentralized exchange based on Colored Coins. Server-side is ready, client-side will be ready in a week.

[TraderTimm]

In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.

So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.

When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.

The project is not very technically rigorous.  I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet.

Rather than complain in a snobbish manner about everyone else's project why don't you crowd fund your own project so we can contribute to and work on your more rigorous technical solution?

I look forward to seeing the source code.

My opinion on the centralization problem is that the purpose behind decentralization is to protect the protocol and participants from compromise. Bittorrent is sufficiently decentralized even though websites such as the PirateBay are used. This is because as soon as one of these websites are shut down another can replace it.

Mirroring can solve a lot of problems. The solution used by Linux distributions (repositories) can solve it, the point is you can have sufficient decentralization using the web. Whether or not they will find the right balance is yet to be seen, but it is a balance between convenience, usability and decentralization.

Well, since I'm not an ego-obsessed developer, I'd rather not try to stuff the blockchain with an inferior alt-coin implementation pretending to NOT be a get-rich-quick-scheme. Some people, however, aren't able to restrain themselves, and I'll gleefully point out every single flaw as this clusterfuck-alt-coin progresses.

I can't wait to see what they put out in the future to undermine their own efforts. The centralization of contract verification is a sweet, sweet dessert though, I may need a bit of a nap to digest that succulent pastry of failure.

[ripper234]

A detailed comparison between Mastercoin and colored coins is available at http://w3.reddit.com/r/coloredcoin/comments/1o6yke/colored_coins_or_mastercoin/ccpgy0x.

Colored coins are technically superior and based on a much stronger conceptual foundation. Mastercoin is more ambitious, aspiring to offer more features than colored coins. Colored coin proponents aim to develop a truly p2p platform, while Mastercoin is much more centralized and managed to raise funding with promises of getting rich quick.

Neither Mastercoin nor colored coins support SPV security. You can't tell if you've received a payment unless you are running a full node and storing the entire index (extended with an additional index for the overlay coin). And storing/updating the additional index could be arbitrarily expensive, especially if you want to support many different colors.

Most mobile phone clients use SPV security. You probably can't have a comparably secure phone client for colored coins or Mastercoin.

Not true. Colored coins transaction validity is local, and therefore verification requires just the relevant tx subgraph, which is small. This means SPV clients can definitely work.

Mastercoin, on the other hand, uses a message system for updating a global state, and thus does not support SPV.

It is a common misconception that Mastercoin is a technology.

Mastercoin isn't a technology. It is a DAC with the goal of building a Forex/value exchange/betting/prediction market.

The technology stack can easily be swapped out under Mastercoin (proof is left for the reader. There's a bounty).

[Skinnkavaj]

Mastercoin is premined shit that will never be a success.

[TKeenan]

Mastercoin is premined shit that will never be a success.

Your understanding of cryptocurrency is clear.  You and your people should stick with Litecoin where you can flourish amongst your peers.

[bluemeanie1]

It is a common misconception that Mastercoin is a technology.

this 'misCONception' might have something to do with what is written at http://Mastercoin.org, registered to Ron Gross somewhere near Technion University.

[ripper234]

It is a common misconception that Mastercoin is a technology.

this 'misCONception' might have something to do with what is written at Mastercoin.org, registered to Ron Gross somewhere near Technion University.

Yeah, I'm done watching this thread.
If you want to reach me, you know how.

[bluemeanie1]

Yeah, I'm done watching this thread.
If you want to reach me, you know how.

I'll be in my office.  hold my calls.

[W2014]

Mastercoin is premined shit that will never be a success.

What an enlightening comment!

[bluemeanie1]

Mastercoin is premined shit that will never be a success.

What an enlightening comment!

I found it rather informative.