Mike Hearn (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1129
|
 |
January 31, 2013, 02:25:35 PM |
|
Smart property isn't really relevant to DRM. Content producers would not be interested in this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
jtimon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 31, 2013, 05:57:15 PM |
|
Mike, what do you think about atpcas's "auditable funding" use case and my proposal to implement it using killerstorms's "smart vouchers"?
|
|
|
|
Mike Hearn (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1129
|
|
February 02, 2013, 04:07:38 PM |
|
there would need to be a way to mark the the bitcons I receive so that I can only purchase equipment with them from certain manufactures that will sell me products that have been tied to the bonds somehow. If you want to give people money "with strings attached" then I think the better direction to go is CP-ABE, see my posts on distributed investment funds. Smart property isn't really relevant to that use case. |
|
|
|
|
atpcas
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
February 02, 2013, 05:06:30 PM
Last edit: February 02, 2013, 05:25:35 PM by atpcas |
|
there would need to be a way to mark the the bitcons I receive so that I can only purchase equipment with them from certain manufactures that will sell me products that have been tied to the bonds somehow. If you want to give people money "with strings attached" then I think the better direction to go is CP-ABE, see my posts on distributed investment funds. Smart property isn't really relevant to that use case. I think it should be stated what the whole point of this "auditable funding" song and dance is. We want to have a stock/bond market where all parties can keep their anonymity. Anything less will lead to a shutdown by government forces and if you think otherwise I believe you are being naive. In a crypto anarchist system where there is no government to enforce contracts alternatives must be sought. Smart property in the use case I described is one such way. |
|
|
|
|
killerstorm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1015
|
|
February 02, 2013, 06:11:55 PM |
|
If you want to give people money "with strings attached" then I think the better direction to go is CP-ABE, see my posts on distributed investment funds. Smart property isn't really relevant to that use case. The whole point is that company will get smart property instead of money. This smart property will enforce certain smart contract which would discourage misuse. |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1129
|
|
February 03, 2013, 02:10:31 PM |
|
Ah, yes, if the companies needs can be met only with smart property, then sure. That sounds unlikely though. Most companies biggest cost is wages, not assets.
A bond market with completely anonymous participants has to rely solely on reputations (as it doesn't really make sense to buy a passport/fidelity bond/etc to borrow money). I'm not sure that's tractable in the real world for the same sorts of reasons that the web of trust never really took off: barrier to entry is too high.
People value their physical identity as an asset because everyone is given one for free at birth by their parents and the state, and because it can be used to easily put your own personal freedom and all assets on the line as collateral in a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
atpcas
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
February 03, 2013, 05:54:24 PM
Last edit: February 03, 2013, 06:10:21 PM by atpcas |
|
Ah, yes, if the companies needs can be met only with smart property, then sure. That sounds unlikely though. Most companies biggest cost is wages, not assets.
A bond market with completely anonymous participants has to rely solely on reputations (as it doesn't really make sense to buy a passport/fidelity bond/etc to borrow money). I'm not sure that's tractable in the real world for the same sorts of reasons that the web of trust never really took off: barrier to entry is too high.
People value their physical identity as an asset because everyone is given one for free at birth by their parents and the state, and because it can be used to easily put your own personal freedom and all assets on the line as collateral in a deal.
The vouchers/colored coins can be used for smart property and/or wages. In the case of wages an employee gets vouchers that he can use to purchase goods at stores. The stores can then swap the vouchers for bitcoins. However if the bond issuer breaks his contract the vouchers he pays out will no longer be exchangeable for bitcoins. Its a slightly different scenario from purchasing smart property but the underlying goal of keeping the bond issuer honest is the same. With the voucher system described the barrier to entry for the web of trust would be lowered, you would have to trust people, but there would be that safeguard of the vouchers and smart property. |
|
|
|
|
killerstorm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1015
|
|
February 03, 2013, 11:01:25 PM |
|
Most companies biggest cost is wages, not assets. Many companies listed on litecoinglobal.com sold shares/bonds to buy equipment. E.g. ESECURITY SA and OPCU are hosting companies which need servers. ART is going to be a ceramic art studio which requires expensive equipment. And so on... Maybe it's not representative sample, but it's still an interesting case. |
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
October 24, 2013, 06:34:29 PM |
|
Concept still works its way around my brain every now and again. ASICs probably would've been a great product to really prove concept on. Might still be, though the markup on them is rapidly depreciating to where they probably wouldn't offer as much benefit (OTOH, it could be a valuable feature once the mining market evens out and you want to distinguish your product from competitors'). ASIC manufacturers are pretty much the only large "Bitcoin manufacturers" -- has anyone suggested an implementation of the concept to them? What better collateral can exist than a money printer? This isn't the only use. Today, was talking to someone about having escrow released at time of confirmed shipment instead of after arrival and testing, and it hit me - that it was possible to do that with smart property. Sites could report hash stats on the signatures of the specific ASICs being sold (which'd be signed as "proof of hashes" [proof of funds]), which would remove a significant amount of trust required to release escrow at time of shipment, rather than after testing (they're often hosted far away from where they end up shipped, and international shipping occasionally results in customs delays).
-Not that I'd recommend releasing before actual arrival of the order and inspection, but it would remove *some* of the trust and make that kind of transaction more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
jtimon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 25, 2013, 06:19:34 PM |
|
Oh, this reminds me, Mike, that you told me in Amsterdam that you hadn't seen the freimarkets proposal for "a hard-fork implementation of colored coins", because, yes, there's many posts in this subforum. Here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=280292.0This could allow very light clients to operate with smart property, specially if the chain also hashes an UTXO index like in: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204283.0 (another hard-fork, although there's the merged mined chain possibility too, but it would be less secure). There's also unique "tokens" that are ideal for some cases like the smart car. We would love to have review and input from more bitcoin developers. Specially those like you, that have also thought about smart property or off-chain transactions. |
|
|
|
|
