Colored Coins and Coinprism takes Bitcoin to a whole new level

[sclaggett]

I think what is confusing to many people is that "colored coins" are not a new alt coin.  The coloring technique is a free and open-source way to turn small amounts of bitcoins into IOUs, shares, vouchers, etc.  Colored coins can co-exist alongside regular bitcoins at a particular bitcoin address. 

You can't buy "colored coins" in the general sense.  But any given person can color a very small amount of bitcoins to create a specific instance of a colored coin.  For example, I created 10 worthless tokens (WTK).

The benefit of creating colored coins that exist on-chain is (a) they can be traded for regular bitcoins in a trustless manner using coinjoin, (b) they are secured by the most powerful single purpose computing network ever created (the bitcoin network). 

Interestingly you could create "colored coins" that are backed by a fiat currency.  No fluctuation.  So in a way you can create virtually any alt coin you want. Correct?  The mechanics of are just different. 

I pay you $50 for x colored coins where each colored coin is basically a note or iou for $50.  You can then redeem that token and get $50 back; it could even have interest applied.    This is my assumption at any rate.

[BTCat]

Can colored coins easily be used as credit in another environment such as in a game?

[vtropolis]

We are using colored coins to create an IPO of our e-commerce business, since it gives a lot of control to us and no fees as oppose to using mastercoin or havelockinvestments.com and cryptostocks.com.  Look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=609682.0

I don't think people would make the switch to from bitcoins to ethereum, nxt, mastercoin and other crypto 2.0 protocols just because although they may be innovative, there is not much incentive to make the switch.  I could be wrong, only time will tell.

[BTCat]

It's still centralized if you need a webbased wallet. Basically all underlying assets would be hosted on your servers. So my question is, is there or will there be a download wallet so people can keep and manage funds from their own computer?

[Peter R]

It's still centralized if you need a webbased wallet. Basically all underlying assets would be hosted on your servers. So my question is, is there or will there be a download wallet so people can keep and manage funds from their own computer?

Coinprism is, AKAIK, the first wallet implementation of the open-assets (colored coins) protocol: https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol/blob/master/specification.mediawiki.  They mentioned earlier in this thread working on an add-on for bitcoin-qt in the future. 

Colored coins are not centralized.  For example, I could send colored coins from my Coinprism webwallet to a cold-storage address that I created offline.  Your colored coins cannot be spent without your offline private key. 

But you need to be very careful.  If you import your colored coin cold private key into a non-color aware wallet you could accidently uncolor your coins.  You'd have to go back to the issuer to ask for new colored coins and perhaps he'd give them you since you could prove that it was you who destroyed them. 

[dave111223]

Is there anyway to track colorcoin transactions via Bitcoind?

For example if you want to setup a bitcoind wallet to handle only a specific coin color asset?

Bitcoind is not "color aware" but I suppose an add-on could be written to do exactly what you suggested.  The website, http://coloredcoins.org, has a list of the current wallet projects, although I'm not sure if the list is exhaustive. 

At the moment, only coinprism is compatible with open assets. We plan to make a tool that act as a layer on top of bitcoind, that can let you use colored coins without having to use a third party.

That would be awesome.  For example then coin colors could easily be added to exchanges etc...

P.S. Very nice website/wallet you guys have developed here.

[serenitys]

This is very cool...even being mostly n00bish on bitcoin all the way around I can see a number of possibilities here. I set up a wallet also to try this out and understand it better if the WTK is still available for testing.

1Q5uQbo73YrPgHx2NvkycuoVyMNsFuZZgG

If so, thanks. If not, no harm...I'll hang onto the wallet for awhile and see how this shapes up.

Now questions.

1. Do we need multiple wallets per multiple transactions as is suggested for btc holdings even if the color coins aren't "worth" anything on their own and are serving as vouchers in kind?

2. If I'm understanding this correctly, it's possible for Company B to issue public color coins as shares, for example, at whatever price, say $50. So the general public could pay Company B $500 and receive 10 CompanyBCoins, and trade or potentially profit the more successful Company B becomes? And the shares then would be valuated according to what - the company itself and if so how is it measured - or the bitcoin market rate, or both/other? I may be blurring things between getting btc on the exchanges and trading, and the scenario mentioned previously about the mining equipment and raising capital.

3. Could this be implemented similarly to the person who suggested the truly awesome votecoin?

4. I'm taking color coin literally so how are these color codes distinguished between people who choose the same color? (don't even...you're the one who's calling it color coin!)

5. I do agree that before the platform gets too popular, maybe consider a more sleek, techno name and keep color coin as a description. I agree the color coin is too easy to mistake for alt coins and this may be an unnecessary barrier to its adoption or getting people to stop and actually go through the information.

6. In the example on coinprism site about buying and selling things like cars and houses, I'm not real sure how that actually works in a practical sense. The example was Joe Blow sells the car to John Smith, JS pays JB the money and JB signs a transaction on the blockchain - basically it's done via the network but at least in the USA, there is more involved to it than that...titles, in particular, purchase agreements, and so on and in some cases the property transaction has to be notarized and there's all kinds of paperwork required by law. Most people will follow that law regardless so how does this overcome those problems?  If I sell Joe Blow a lawnmower, he pays me in btc, cool...end of it. But anything like property, houses, vehicles, boats and whatnot this isn't going to work other than an extra step.

7. At the end of the day, is this basically crowdfunding with tokens?

I'm sure I'll have more questions but this is good for a start

[Peter R]

This is very cool...even being mostly n00bish on bitcoin all the way around I can see a number of possibilities here. I set up a wallet also to try this out and understand it better if the WTK is still available for testing.

1Q5uQbo73YrPgHx2NvkycuoVyMNsFuZZgG

One worthless token (1 WTK) has been sent to 1Q5uQbo73YrPgHx2NvkycuoVyMNsFuZZgG!  You should see this in your coinprism wallet, but you'll need a small amount of bitcoins to issue your own colored tokens or move them from address to address. 

1. Do we need multiple wallets per multiple transactions as is suggested for btc holdings even if the color coins aren't "worth" anything on their own and are serving as vouchers in kind?

Colored coins and regular coins can co-exist.  For example, I could have 0.02 BTC, 1 WTK, 100 OWL and some other IOUs at 1 specific address.  The thing people need to be careful of is that most wallets are "color blind".  What this means is that if you load the private key for an address that contains colored coins into a normal wallet and spend some coins, the transaction might "uncolor" the coins. 

Coinprism is color aware so it can send all colors of coins as well as regular bitcoins. 

2. If I'm understanding this correctly, it's possible for Company B to issue public color coins as shares, for example, at whatever price, say $50. So the general public could pay Company B $500 and receive 10 CompanyBCoins, and trade or potentially profit the more successful Company B becomes? And the shares then would be valuated according to what - the company itself and if so how is it measured - or the bitcoin market rate, or both/other? I may be blurring things between getting btc on the exchanges and trading, and the scenario mentioned previously about the mining equipment and raising capital.

The shares would be valued by the free market.  It is confusing right now because colored coins are so new.  But eventually, there will exchanges set up where people can trade various colored assets.  This will allow for transparent price discovery. 

Of course you are also free to trade your colored coins privately with whoever you like, perhaps using the market rate on an exchange as the price. 

3. Could this be implemented similarly to the person who suggested the truly awesome votecoin?

I'm not familiar with vote coin, but colored coins would allow share holders to vote in a trustless and decentralized way.  Each colored coin would give a share holder 1 vote. 

4. I'm taking color coin literally so how are these color codes distinguished between people who choose the same color? (don't even...you're the one who's calling it color coin!)

Lol, I was discussing this with someone else today too.  The idea of "color" is just an abstraction to indicate that the 60 bit tokens have been "market" in a unique distinguishable way.  There are 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976 possible colors so we won't run out!

5. I do agree that before the platform gets too popular, maybe consider a more sleek, techno name and keep color coin as a description. I agree the color coin is too easy to mistake for alt coins and this may be an unnecessary barrier to its adoption or getting people to stop and actually go through the information.

I agree that it is confusing, but hopefully it sorts itself out.  The problem is that "colored coins" is a noun but really what we are usually talking about is the action of coloring (a verb).  We color (verb) bitcoins to create new tokens that have some sort of meaning.  For example, the coins I colored to create WTK have the agreement that they are just worthless tokens!

6. In the example on coinprism site about buying and selling things like cars and houses, I'm not real sure how that actually works in a practical sense. The example was Joe Blow sells the car to John Smith, JS pays JB the money and JB signs a transaction on the blockchain - basically it's done via the network but at least in the USA, there is more involved to it than that...titles, in particular, purchase agreements, and so on and in some cases the property transaction has to be notarized and there's all kinds of paperwork required by law. Most people will follow that law regardless so how does this overcome those problems?  If I sell Joe Blow a lawnmower, he pays me in btc, cool...end of it. But anything like property, houses, vehicles, boats and whatnot this isn't going to work other than an extra step.

I think some people are just imagining a future where we can register and trade assets directly on the blockchain.

But already we can create legal agreements with colored coins.  Many people think that only formal contracts written by lawyers, signed in ink and witnessed by witnesses are legal.  But this is not true.  Even an agreement written on a napkin is legally binding if both parties understood and intended to enter into it.  We just use the formal contracts, ink signatures and witnesses to make it more clear and proveable that an agreement was actually made. 

But now with colored coins and digital signatures, we have a new tool to make agreements in a way that both parties can prove that the agreement was actually made.  We don't really need notaries anymore, and the role of lawyers can be scaled back too.

7. At the end of the day, is this basically crowdfunding with tokens?

That is one application, and there are many others too.

[ar9]

I refuse to put one satoshi in a wallet that's not mine.
Until they fix this, I am not interested.  But once that's fixed, then I'll be all over this.

[Peter R]

I refuse to put one satoshi in a wallet that's not mine.
Until they fix this, I am not interested.  But once that's fixed, then I'll be all over this.

You can already accept colored coins to a paper wallet, for example.  You just can't move those colored outputs without a color-aware client (or issue your own tokens). 

Note that the open-assets protocol is public so you could "fix" any problems that you perceive.  We are lucky that people are moving projects like this forward and then making them available to the bitcoin community.  On that note, I don't see why Coinprism couldn't charge a fee to allow you to issue colored coins through their wallet service.  Right now, the only alternative is to write your own client! 

[serenitys]

I think what is confusing to many people is that "colored coins" are not a new alt coin.  The coloring technique is a free and open-source way to turn small amounts of bitcoins into IOUs, shares, vouchers, etc.  Colored coins can co-exist alongside regular bitcoins at a particular bitcoin address. 

You can't buy "colored coins" in the general sense.  But any given person can color a very small amount of bitcoins to create a specific instance of a colored coin.  For example, I created 10 worthless tokens (WTK).

The benefit of creating colored coins that exist on-chain is (a) they can be traded for regular bitcoins in a trustless manner using coinjoin, (b) they are secured by the most powerful single purpose computing network ever created (the bitcoin network). 

Interestingly you could create "colored coins" that are backed by a fiat currency.  No fluctuation.  So in a way you can create virtually any alt coin you want. Correct?  The mechanics of are just different. 

I pay you $50 for x colored coins where each colored coin is basically a note or iou for $50.  You can then redeem that token and get $50 back; it could even have interest applied.    This is my assumption at any rate.

I can see governments and the banking cartel short circuiting over that one... 

[serenitys]

One worthless token (1 WTK) has been sent to 1Q5uQbo73YrPgHx2NvkycuoVyMNsFuZZgG!  You should see this in your coinprism wallet, but you'll need a small amount of bitcoins to issue your own colored tokens or move them from address to address.  

Thanks! Received. Who was doling out owl coins? I'd end up collecting coins! It'd be so nice to get in on the ground zero floor of something that actually takes off for a change. I hate that I didn't know squat about btc until a month and a half ago. But to be fair, I doubt seriously I'd have invested anything in a virtual currency for 32c.

Colored coins and regular coins can co-exist.  For example, I could have 0.02 BTC, 1 WTK, 100 OWL and some other IOUs at 1 specific address.  The thing people need to be careful of is that most wallets are "color blind".  What this means is that if you load the private key for an address that contains colored coins into a normal wallet and spend some coins, the transaction might "uncolor" the coins.  

Coinprism is color aware so it can send all colors of coins as well as regular bitcoins.  

Got it. So basically before sending anything from that wallet with multiple things in it, I'd need to move the btc out to a normal one first?

I'm not familiar with vote coin, but colored coins would allow share holders to vote in a trustless and decentralized way.  Each colored coin would give a share holder 1 vote.  

Yeah, that's basically the idea. There was a thread on here somewhere I read a few weeks back where someone had raised the possibility or was already working on a vote coin - not sure if they called it votecoin or not - that used the bitcoin platform as a voting mechanism that couldn't be tampered with, rigged, etc. so all votes were counted, tallied, and kind of revolutionizing elections, which I'd get behind in a split second if I hadn't already gotten behind it a split second after I read it in that thread  

Lol, I was discussing this with someone else today too.  The idea of "color" is just an abstraction to indicate that the 60 bit tokens have been "market" in a unique distinguishable way.  There are 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976 possible colors so we won't run out!

 

Now I see why they just went with colored coins! But I still wanted blue ones!!

I agree that it is confusing, but hopefully it sorts itself out.  The problem is that "colored coins" is a noun but really what we are usually talking about is the action of coloring (a verb).  We color (verb) bitcoins to create new tokens that have some sort of meaning.  For example, the coins I colored to create WTK have the agreement that they are just worthless tokens!

Initially, I figured alt coin but the more I read, the more it seemed like a labeling layer - and that being said, I still have no clue how to read the blockchain properly so there's that...




Thanks for the explanations!

[Adrian-x]

I think what is confusing to many people is that "colored coins" are not a new alt coin.  The coloring technique is a free and open-source way to turn small amounts of bitcoins into IOUs, shares, vouchers, etc.  Colored coins can co-exist alongside regular bitcoins at a particular bitcoin address.  

You can't buy "colored coins" in the general sense.  But any given person can color a very small amount of bitcoins to create a specific instance of a colored coin.  For example, I created 10 worthless tokens (WTK).

The benefit of creating colored coins that exist on-chain is (a) they can be traded for regular bitcoins in a trustless manner using coinjoin, (b) they are secured by the most powerful single purpose computing network ever created (the bitcoin network).  

Interestingly you could create "colored coins" that are backed by a fiat currency.  No fluctuation.  So in a way you can create virtually any alt coin you want. Correct?  The mechanics of are just different.  

I pay you $50 for x colored coins where each colored coin is basically a note or iou for $50.  You can then redeem that token and get $50 back; it could even have interest applied.    This is my assumption at any rate.

I can see governments and the banking cartel short circuiting over that one...  

It cuts both ways trusted company's can issue there own money (coloured coin tokens) redeemable for a fixed service or product.

Money becomes the domain of the producers not the banks - Hayek's private money dream is realised.

[Peter R]

Creating bitcoin put and call options with colored coins

I think it is possible to create put and call options for the USD/BTC price with low trust requirements using colored coins.  

Here’s an example:  

You might want to buy a put option to hedge your downside risk on the bitcoin exchange rate.  Say the price of bitcoin is currently $450.  You buy an option to sell Counterparty A a certain number of bitcoins on July 31, 2014 at $400.  If the price of bitcoins is less than $400 on July 31, then obviously you exercise your option and sell the coins to Counterparty A at $400  / BTC.  If the price is higher than $400, then your options expires worthless.  

Now here’s where the idea gets unique:  Rather than settling in dollars, if the contract is written for settlement in bitcoins, then it would be possible for Counterparty A to prove that they are adequately capitalized to settle put options in bitcoins rather than dollars.  A reserve of bitcoins spendable with the same script used to issue the colored assets automatically become the proof of reserves.  

So now Counterparty A has shown they have sufficient reserves to make good on the put options.  Next, we must somehow force transfers from the reserve address to the outstanding colored coins, should the puts expire “in the money.”  I don’t think this process can be entirely trustless because we need to agree on the bitcoin/USD price; however, I think by using multisig with keys held by neutral third parties, that we could at least make it completely transparent.   Any fraud should be obvious and provable.  

There is one “catch” of course:  The reason you buy a put option in the first place is to hedge your downside risk.  But if the price of bitcoin completely collapses, receiving settlement in bitcoins would be impossible since they would no longer have any value.  I don’t think this is a show stopper, but it would mean that the put options would be able to settle in bitcoins for all values of bitcoin greater than, say, $100 / BTC.  The floor price could be made lower by increasing the bitcoin reserves held at the colored coin address.   Put options with lower floors would be more valuable.  

[Peter R]

I'm thinking more about these multisig colored coins with associated bitcoin reserves (i.e., reserves that are spendable with the same script used to create the colored coins).  Since the asset address (for the colored coins) is the hash of the output-script used to create them, I see no reason why the output script can't be multisig.  This means that it should be possible to create colored assets such that re-issueing more requires, say, 2 of 3 signatures:




My next question is, is it possible to send regular coins to the colored asset address and then transfer them out using the same multi-sig rules used to create the asset?

As an experiment, I tried to send coins to the Worthless Token address (33C124f3w4cJNAi3hVjNMhdegUTAcDRzmB).  Blockchain.info wouldn't let me but Coinprism would.  So now there's 100 bits sitting there.  

When I look at the address in a blockexplorer, it implies that 33C124f3w4cJNAi3hVjNMhdegUTAcDRzmB is the same address as 12Vz6XAcPAHvH11caQ4mw5GiXxAT4YR7kZ.  Can anyone explain this?  For example, is it possible to spend that 100 bits sitting there?  What would the private key be?

[stslimited]

any comments on this? http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/25pax6/coinprism_colored_coin_metadata_great_use_of/

colored coin metadata stored on sidechain , instead of main blockchain or server

PM me if you can

[isidore]

Creating bitcoin put and call options with colored coins

I think it is possible to create put and call options for the USD/BTC price with low trust requirements using colored coins.  

Here’s an example:  

You might want to buy a put option to hedge your downside risk on the bitcoin exchange rate.  Say the price of bitcoin is currently $450.  You buy an option to sell Counterparty A a certain number of bitcoins on July 31, 2014 at $400.  If the price of bitcoins is less than $400 on July 31, then obviously you exercise your option and sell the coins to Counterparty A at $400  / BTC.  If the price is higher than $400, then your options expires worthless.  

Now here’s where the idea gets unique:  Rather than settling in dollars, if the contract is written for settlement in bitcoins, then it would be possible for Counterparty A to prove that they are adequately capitalized to settle put options in bitcoins rather than dollars.  A reserve of bitcoins spendable with the same script used to issue the colored assets automatically become the proof of reserves.  

So now Counterparty A has shown they have sufficient reserves to make good on the put options.  Next, we must somehow force transfers from the reserve address to the outstanding colored coins, should the puts expire “in the money.”  I don’t think this process can be entirely trustless because we need to agree on the bitcoin/USD price; however, I think by using multisig with keys held by neutral third parties, that we could at least make it completely transparent.   Any fraud should be obvious and provable.  

There is one “catch” of course:  The reason you buy a put option in the first place is to hedge your downside risk.  But if the price of bitcoin completely collapses, receiving settlement in bitcoins would be impossible since they would no longer have any value.  I don’t think this is a show stopper, but it would mean that the put options would be able to settle in bitcoins for all values of bitcoin greater than, say, $100 / BTC.  The floor price could be made lower by increasing the bitcoin reserves held at the colored coin address.   Put options with lower floors would be more valuable.  

You may not to have the risk of settle in bitcoins if there exists a USDCoin token.

Would this work:
1. Assume another party (e.g. Fed or whoever) is running USDCoin, issueing USD tokens which they guarantee is redeemable for cash.

2. Assume an oracle service (also another party) which will be known to sign the transaction given that a script (could be in the metadata) evaluates to true, in this case BTCUSD < 400 AND date >= Jul 31st.

3. Create 3-of-3 multisig address with you, oracle service and Counterparty A. With this address as the input:
a. All of you sign an NlockTime transaction dated August 2nd, transferring 400 USDCoins to CounterParty A. CounterParty A gets to keep this transaction to broadcast if the option is not exercised on by August 2nd.
b. Both you and counterpartyA sign a transaction containing metadata condition "BTCUSD < 400 AND date >= Jul 31st", which the oracle will sign if is true, giving you 400 USDCoin and CounterpartyA 1 BTC.

4. Counterparty A, knowing that they can get the money back using above transaction if option is not exercised by August 2nd, constructs and signs a transaction with SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY and the outputs:
a. to the multisig address sending 400 USDCoin (they would sign an input for this one)
b. to their own address containing the price of the put option.

5. You take the transaction above, add your input to pay output b as the price of the option, and broadcast the transaction. This will put the 400 usdcoins into the multisig address.

6. Come Aug 1st, if BTCUSD < 400, the oracle service will sign the multisig transaction in 3b for you and you can get 400 USDcoins. If you don't redeem by Aug 2 then CounterPartyA can just redeem their USDCoins.

This would not require you to trust counterpartyA, but would require trust of USDCoin's issuer and also the oracle service. Since both of them are (hopefully) large and unrelated to CounterPartyA and run a business by taking fees, they should not have interest in cooperating with either you or the option counterparty.

[Peter R]

Creating bitcoin put and call options with colored coins

I think it is possible to create put and call options for the USD/BTC price with low trust requirements using colored coins.  

Here’s an example:  

You might want to buy a put option to hedge your downside risk on the bitcoin exchange rate.  Say the price of bitcoin is currently $450.  You buy an option to sell Counterparty A a certain number of bitcoins on July 31, 2014 at $400.  If the price of bitcoins is less than $400 on July 31, then obviously you exercise your option and sell the coins to Counterparty A at $400  / BTC.  If the price is higher than $400, then your options expires worthless.  

Now here’s where the idea gets unique:  Rather than settling in dollars, if the contract is written for settlement in bitcoins, then it would be possible for Counterparty A to prove that they are adequately capitalized to settle put options in bitcoins rather than dollars.  A reserve of bitcoins spendable with the same script used to issue the colored assets automatically become the proof of reserves.  

So now Counterparty A has shown they have sufficient reserves to make good on the put options.  Next, we must somehow force transfers from the reserve address to the outstanding colored coins, should the puts expire “in the money.”  I don’t think this process can be entirely trustless because we need to agree on the bitcoin/USD price; however, I think by using multisig with keys held by neutral third parties, that we could at least make it completely transparent.   Any fraud should be obvious and provable.  

There is one “catch” of course:  The reason you buy a put option in the first place is to hedge your downside risk.  But if the price of bitcoin completely collapses, receiving settlement in bitcoins would be impossible since they would no longer have any value.  I don’t think this is a show stopper, but it would mean that the put options would be able to settle in bitcoins for all values of bitcoin greater than, say, $100 / BTC.  The floor price could be made lower by increasing the bitcoin reserves held at the colored coin address.   Put options with lower floors would be more valuable.  

You may not to have the risk of settle in bitcoins if there exists a USDCoin token.

Would this work:
1. Assume another party (e.g. Fed or whoever) is running USDCoin, issueing USD tokens which they guarantee is redeemable for cash.

If you had colored-coins issued by the Fed ($-tokens), a lot would be possible.  However, that is not going to happen very soon if ever. 

My proposal above creates a tether to the US dollar in a way that minimizes counter-party risk while operating entirely outside of the traditional banking system. 

[Coinprism]

It's unlikely the FED does anything like this, but a company could easily do it, by either accepting USD deposits and issuing USD-coins in exchange, or simply allowing people to deposit BTC, convert it at the Bitstamp rate, and in the backend, convert the BTC to USD in order to cancel out the exposure.

[contactlight]

But isn't CoinPrism just centralizing the Bitcoin coloring aspect? I mean, when people started discussing the idea of colored coins, I thought they were referring to adding a color field to the distributed ledger somehow.