Bitcoin Forum
September 30, 2016, 11:45:46 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Introducing: Bitcoin Networked Economy Specification v0.01-DRAFT  (Read 4043 times)
eugene2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
July 28, 2010, 10:04:19 PM
 #21

Sorry, not gonna fly. Back in the 90s everyone offered web-hosting, and technically-savvy people could create websites, anyone knows angelfire, tripod, geocities? They were big in the 90s, now you probably have to search really hard to find anyone familiar with those web-services. You know why? In the 2000s blogging sites appeared, which, in essence, killed the personal websites industry. Because it's thousands of times easier to set up and maintain a blog than it is to set up and maintain a website. We now have ebay to sell and buy stuff from other people. The spec is a step backwards: it's made with the idea that a merchant would want to create a website, manage it, process transactions etc. The merchant only wants to sell her product. That's all.

This whole policy thing, as I see it, is meant only for one thing: ease the job of the spider. And there aren't any spiders yet. Registering a standard before creating an implementation of it is just plain wrong.
1475235946
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475235946

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475235946
Reply with quote  #2

1475235946
Report to moderator
1475235946
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475235946

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475235946
Reply with quote  #2

1475235946
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
lachesis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 28, 2010, 10:12:22 PM
 #22

I too am a bit skeptical of the power of the spec in the merchant market, but I think it would be great for exchanges, which need to get scraped often.

The white/blacklisting stuff could be better handled by FOAF and the like.

Bitcoin Calculator | Scallion | GPG Key | WoT Rating | 1QGacAtYA7E8V3BAiM7sgvLg7PZHk5WnYc
Anonymous
Guest

July 29, 2010, 05:39:37 AM
 #23

Sorry, not gonna fly. Back in the 90s everyone offered web-hosting, and technically-savvy people could create websites, anyone knows angelfire, tripod, geocities? They were big in the 90s, now you probably have to search really hard to find anyone familiar with those web-services. You know why? In the 2000s blogging sites appeared, which, in essence, killed the personal websites industry. Because it's thousands of times easier to set up and maintain a blog than it is to set up and maintain a website. We now have ebay to sell and buy stuff from other people. The spec is a step backwards: it's made with the idea that a merchant would want to create a website, manage it, process transactions etc. The merchant only wants to sell her product. That's all.

This whole policy thing, as I see it, is meant only for one thing: ease the job of the spider. And there aren't any spiders yet. Registering a standard before creating an implementation of it is just plain wrong.

That is why I used google blogger with a custom domain name.The thought of managing a website hurts my brain. Huh
Vasili Sviridov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2010, 06:31:48 AM
 #24

Hey, I had a Tripod and Geocities pages Cheesy

Ahh... memories  Smiley

However with proper plugins for major blogging platforms this spec can be a viable tool.
Kinda more work for the spec author though.

1JHYtsmsGq2McwGHmWayVjVtHds8rp1R5
eugene2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
July 29, 2010, 07:52:37 AM
 #25

I too am a bit skeptical of the power of the spec in the merchant market, but I think it would be great for exchanges, which need to get scraped often.
Not until there are many exchanges dealing with the same currencies. And I'm doubtfull that many more will be popping up.
sirius
Bitcoiner
Staff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 429



View Profile
July 29, 2010, 08:02:02 AM
 #26

Sorry, not gonna fly. Back in the 90s everyone offered web-hosting, and technically-savvy people could create websites, anyone knows angelfire, tripod, geocities? They were big in the 90s, now you probably have to search really hard to find anyone familiar with those web-services. You know why? In the 2000s blogging sites appeared, which, in essence, killed the personal websites industry. Because it's thousands of times easier to set up and maintain a blog than it is to set up and maintain a website. We now have ebay to sell and buy stuff from other people. The spec is a step backwards: it's made with the idea that a merchant would want to create a website, manage it, process transactions etc. The merchant only wants to sell her product. That's all.

This can still be used by the vast number of merchants or companies who do have a website. Those who don't can use a plugin on their blog, webstore or social networking site.

Quote
This whole policy thing, as I see it, is meant only for one thing: ease the job of the spider. And there aren't any spiders yet. Registering a standard before creating an implementation of it is just plain wrong.

It's not wrong. We're developing here.

Identifi - Decentralized address book with trust ratings
I'm not a forum admin - please contact theymos instead.
dwdollar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 166


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2010, 04:24:45 AM
 #27

I'm wondering about the "pair" names.  Is "BCUSD" short for "BC/USD" or BC per USD?  I believe the examples used are reflecting a USD/BC or EUR/BC exchange rate (which is the convention for most exchangers).  In this case, it would be more appropriate to use USDBC or EURBC.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!