Bitcoin Forum
November 09, 2024, 01:51:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Proposal to Fork Mastercoin and Burn a portion of JR's immense stash.  (Read 10010 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
JohnnyBTCSeed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 30, 2014, 08:47:02 PM
Last edit: December 01, 2014, 06:38:34 AM by JohnnyBTCSeed
 #41

@ JR and Mr. Johnston

You guys would be wise to make a public appearance before this mastercoup (tm) goes any farther.


NOW is your chance to rebrand. I hope you make your first act to deal with the whale issue.
hmmmstrange
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 669
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 30, 2014, 08:47:30 PM
 #42

Quote
Hi, this is Jeremy from Vennd. I'll stay out of the political talk and let you guys make the decisions that you need to make.

If there are any asset issuers out there who would like to move over to Counterparty, I'd be happy to assist (for free). There are a few ways in which a migration of assets from MSC could work. We could set up a vending machine which detects a burn of a MSC asset - a send to a provably unspendable address and then send the Counterparty equivalent to the burner. This is an opt-in burn. This burn period could be run for a while to allow people to withdraw funds from exchanges, etc.

Is there any reason why the burn period would have to be of limited time?
hmmmstrange
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 669
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 30, 2014, 09:00:17 PM
 #43

I just want to point out that it's been 5 days with zero activity on github.
led_lcd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 262
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 30, 2014, 09:24:14 PM
 #44

Quote
Hi, this is Jeremy from Vennd. I'll stay out of the political talk and let you guys make the decisions that you need to make.

If there are any asset issuers out there who would like to move over to Counterparty, I'd be happy to assist (for free). There are a few ways in which a migration of assets from MSC could work. We could set up a vending machine which detects a burn of a MSC asset - a send to a provably unspendable address and then send the Counterparty equivalent to the burner. This is an opt-in burn. This burn period could be run for a while to allow people to withdraw funds from exchanges, etc.

Is there any reason why the burn period would have to be of limited time?

Technically, there is no reason. It's just impractical to keep it going forever.

Scotcoin moved from their own blockchain to Counterparty in a similar burn. They decided on a similar mechanism to remove inactive holders of their coin. Note: They didn't use Vennd.

edit: 'supporters' to 'holders'
crazy_rabbit (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
November 30, 2014, 10:16:27 PM
 #45

Quote
Hi, this is Jeremy from Vennd. I'll stay out of the political talk and let you guys make the decisions that you need to make.

If there are any asset issuers out there who would like to move over to Counterparty, I'd be happy to assist (for free). There are a few ways in which a migration of assets from MSC could work. We could set up a vending machine which detects a burn of a MSC asset - a send to a provably unspendable address and then send the Counterparty equivalent to the burner. This is an opt-in burn. This burn period could be run for a while to allow people to withdraw funds from exchanges, etc.

Is there any reason why the burn period would have to be of limited time?

Technically, there is no reason. It's just impractical to keep it going forever.

Scotcoin moved from their own blockchain to Counterparty in a similar burn. They decided on a similar mechanism to remove inactive holders of their coin. Note: They didn't use Vennd.

edit: 'supporters' to 'holders'

I just checked out Vennd and I'm pretty impressed, very cool! Here's another question then- if something like maidsafe choose not to move over to counterparty, could we still use Vennd to port the tokens over to Counterparty so we could more easily buy/sell/whatever with them on counterparty, and then 'cashout' to move them back to mastercoin? It might be a nice way to 'introduce' token issuers to the idea of moving to counterparty.

more or less retired.
dexX7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1026



View Profile WWW
December 01, 2014, 05:24:17 AM
 #46

Quote
Here's another question then- if something like maidsafe choose not to move over to counterparty, could we still use Vennd to port the tokens over to Counterparty so we could more easily buy/sell/whatever with them on counterparty, and then 'cashout' to move them back to mastercoin?

A gateway that allows to move between both protocols? This is interesting. Politics aside, like erasing JR's stash, I'm more interested in the technical side of things.

Because there is no fixed conversion rate of MSC/XCP and XCP/MSC, proxy tokens on each side would have to be created.

So how are tokens transfered between both protocols? I guess the easy way is to use a third party (e.g. Vennd) that has knowledge about both sides and acts as mediator, but I'm wondering, if there is an alternative without a centralized, single point of failure.

JohnnyBTCSeed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 01, 2014, 06:30:54 AM
 #47

CIYAM.org

Atomic Cross-Chain Transfer
-------------------------------------

An AT that enables an atomic cross-chain transfer to be executed by creating two separate instances of itself
on two seperate blockchains
crazy_rabbit (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
December 01, 2014, 07:59:06 AM
 #48

CIYAM.org

Atomic Cross-Chain Transfer
-------------------------------------

An AT that enables an atomic cross-chain transfer to be executed by creating two separate instances of itself
on two seperate blockchains

I think it's a great idea, but I just can't wrap my head around how it works. :-)

more or less retired.
jrmg
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 134
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 01, 2014, 10:43:48 AM
 #49

https://www.maidsafe.org/t/what-happen-for-maidsafe-if-mastercoin-run-out-of-money/2120
davidpbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 531
Merit: 260


Vires in Numeris


View Profile WWW
December 01, 2014, 12:22:49 PM
 #50

Frustration with Mastercoin is understandable but I am not convinced by what has been suggested above.

OP's major objections appears to be JR's holdings. I'm unclear what is being suggested for others holding MSC but it would be odd to resolve that problem without JR's input.

Having a coup and grabbing the utility and community, is all very well as a simple idea but what about developers? Developers are the most fundamental element but nothing in the OP seemed to address what development team any new fork would have.

If there is value in Mastercoin's utility; its developers; and its community, then it would be better those assets are retained and the frustration with JR's holdings is resolved directly. Mastercoin could easily come alive on the back of interest in other Bitcoin2.0 projects. Everyone seems to overstate where we are right now - there's a long way to go, I expect at least three years before mainstream.


OP appears more concerned about the value of OPs stake to be talking for Maidsafe
> It would be terrible to let the failures of Mastercoin impact projects like Maidsafe.
but has Maidsafe expressed such concern. They might well be wise to the long term potential of project's like their own and Mastercoin.


There seems little doubt mistakes were made with Mastercoin's use of resources to date; and its PR sucks but it's not easy to market before there is real utility - even BitShares understands that.. there is huge potential here and the OP appears to be suggesting a nuclear option that is perhaps coming far too soon.

For all other offering having a larger market cap, the market cap is an illusion until mainstream are on board and there isn't the utility anywhere yet for that.


Even if there was clear evidence that the whole dev team less JR was on board with such a radical idea, then there would still be a question about the sense of it in the absence of JR's input. It seems JR's input has been substantial to date, I think there remain better ways to resolve this and JR should be provided opportunity to respond to these concerns.

Looking for short term profits, tends to prompt short term answers to what appear to be difficult problems - but those answers are not always the best.

Also don't let envy of big stashes get the better of you. In the event that JR evidenced use of his holdings for the benefit of Mastercoin, then there would be no problem. Indeed the way Mastercoin was setup, was exactly expecting that such holdings would be used in this way, so I wonder that the OP mistakes the reality of the way that Mastercoin IPO worked. Remember there have been many different approaches to IPOs, and really noone can say yet which has worked and which has not. Again, market cap is an illusion until the point that mainstream consensus is behind a project, all value is an illusion - you cannot sell more than a small fraction of any marketcap, including Bitcoin without the market collapsing.


The core question is properly when will Mastercoin have utility and what can be done to support that. Then there is another concern about that relative to other offerings and mainstream users coming on board. Remember how large the potential market is. Forking for forking sake as the OP appears to encourage, does not convince me.

 Cool

฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
crazy_rabbit (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
December 01, 2014, 01:34:22 PM
 #51

Frustration with Mastercoin is understandable but I am not convinced by what has been suggested above.

OP's major objections appears to be JR's holdings. I'm unclear what is being suggested for others holding MSC but it would be odd to resolve that problem without JR's input.

Having a coup and grabbing the utility and community, is all very well as a simple idea but what about developers? Developers are the most fundamental element but nothing in the OP seemed to address what development team any new fork would have.

If there is value in Mastercoin's utility; its developers; and its community, then it would be better those assets are retained and the frustration with JR's holdings is resolved directly. Mastercoin could easily come alive on the back of interest in other Bitcoin2.0 projects. Everyone seems to overstate where we are right now - there's a long way to go, I expect at least three years before mainstream.

To be clear- this thread is about discussing the idea. These days precious little seems to draw anyone who is working on Mastercoin out to speak with the community at length or indepth. The updates on the blog are great to see, but the "great things are happening with mastercoin" updates leave a lot to be desired when Judith keeps linking to projects that don't have working websites, (http://www.coinproz.com/) or are down right silly (http://www.thefestivalofhope.org/).

Thus far JR seems very unwilling to talk about the frustration with his holdings. If you look back at the thread you'll see I was always highly supportive of JR's holdings and had no issue with it. The truth of the matter is though that while things are indeed happening with Mastercoin, I think very few people seem to see any indications that anything has been learned from the mistakes of the past, or that better processes are put in place for the future. Indeed, I think many of us know hardly anything about what is going on with the project. The last feedback that we had on the official mastercoin thread here was that they were going to close the thread and thus end the discussion entirely. A week goes by with no activity on the git-hub, no one shows up on the thread to reach out to the community and mastercointalk is a near ghosttown. I think in many people's minds the shop certainly seems to be empty.


Quote

OP appears more concerned about the value of OPs stake to be talking for Maidsafe
> It would be terrible to let the failures of Mastercoin impact projects like Maidsafe.
but has Maidsafe expressed such concern. They might well be wise to the long term potential of project's like their own and Mastercoin.


There seems little doubt mistakes were made with Mastercoin's use of resources to date; and its PR sucks but it's not easy to market before there is real utility - even BitShares understands that.. there is huge potential here and the OP appears to be suggesting a nuclear option that is perhaps coming far too soon.

I'm an original Exodus investor, but I'm also an Maidsafe holder and I'm concerned for both. I've been directed to a few things regarding Maidsafe's plans for a possible mastercoin collapse, and I'll read those.

I don't think it's a question of just the mistake of Mastecoin's use of resources, and PR sucking, at this point it becomes a question of is anyone at the helm, and if there is- is there even any crew left to speak of? CIYAM posted a perfectly resonably offer to be involved in a cross chain transaction project and no one gets in touch with them. There's plenty of time to update us on nonsense "gold hope coins for world peace global concert series" mastercoin projects, but no one can send an email out to a project that actually a) has a bounty and b) could prove a seriously viable use case for our existence?

Quote
For all other offering having a larger market cap, the market cap is an illusion until mainstream are on board and there isn't the utility anywhere yet for that.
Even if there was clear evidence that the whole dev team less JR was on board with such a radical idea, then there would still be a question about the sense of it in the absence of JR's input. It seems JR's input has been substantial to date, I think there remain better ways to resolve this and JR should be provided opportunity to respond to these concerns.

Market cap doesn't really enter into it for me. As for JR's input, I think I would phrase it best: After Counterparty was rebuffed, they went ahead without JR's input and look what it's done for them.

I do indeed think JR has an opportunity to respond and debate- indeed I hope he shows up!

Quote
Looking for short term profits, tends to prompt short term answers to what appear to be difficult problems - but those answers are not always the best.
Also don't let envy of big stashes get the better of you. In the event that JR evidenced use of his holdings for the benefit of Mastercoin, then there would be no problem. Indeed the way Mastercoin was setup, was exactly expecting that such holdings would be used in this way, so I wonder that the OP mistakes the reality of the way that Mastercoin IPO worked. Remember there have been many different approaches to IPOs, and really noone can say yet which has worked and which has not. Again, market cap is an illusion until the point that mainstream consensus is behind a project, all value is an illusion - you cannot sell more than a small fraction of any marketcap, including Bitcoin without the market collapsing.

It's not stash envy, nor pursuit of short time profit (that time passed for mastercoin a long time ago!) it's a question of the management of such a large stash of coins, and the commitment of the person holding them. If JR was on the forum day in and day out, and making commits day in and day out, I wouldn't be asking the community to debate this. But where is he? Where are the commits? Where is the community outreach? It's great that Mastercoin had all this funding from the outset, but at this point even ColoredCoins are much farther down the road than we are. It's fantastic we raised all this money to pay PR agencies and developers, but if no love was given to building a community that would keep the ship sailing even without a captain and strong winds- whats the future now that we are out of money and out of community? JR has wielded his giant stash to negative effect on the community, creating confusion, doubt and disappointment. It's not a question of being envious of his stash, but why should a community coalesce around a project that will most benefit one individual, an individual who has proven they will dump large amounts of coins early in the game when speculation is high, and an individual who simply isn't acting like he stands to gain monumentally from any incremental positive development. Like I said, if he was out and about drumming up support, day in and day out, engaging the community, commiting on github, etc... even if he was making all bad decisions, we wouldn't be at this point. We're at this point because it's been a litany of questionable decisions and he's, nor anyone else, is anywhere to be found.


Quote
The core question is properly when will Mastercoin have utility and what can be done to support that. Then there is another concern about that relative to other offerings and mainstream users coming on board. Remember how large the potential market is. Forking for forking sake as the OP appears to encourage, does not convince me.

I'm tempted to think the core question maybe- is Mastercoin a great idea with a bad team? Counter-party seems to have settled that question, which the begs, what can be done to fix this and turn things around? The other concern is that with the track record the project has, maybe our main impediment is JR at the helm- despite it being his baby. By forking mastercoin we don't destroy his mastercoin, we simply take those who are still left, and still interested and build our own project. I don't think I'm the only one here.


Anyway, thanks for posting. I saw your cross post at mastercointalk, no one had read it but me, but it would be nice if developers, JR, Judith, anyone, from the project would really enjoin a serious and critical debate about the future of Mastercoin.

more or less retired.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
December 01, 2014, 01:53:49 PM
Last edit: December 01, 2014, 02:04:01 PM by CIYAM
 #52

CIYAM.org

Atomic Cross-Chain Transfer
-------------------------------------

An AT that enables an atomic cross-chain transfer to be executed by creating two separate instances of itself
on two seperate blockchains

I think it's a great idea, but I just can't wrap my head around how it works. :-)

It's not that hard to understand - if two blockchains have both implemented AT then you can use a similar "atomic cross-chain transfer" technique that TierNolan had described for doing the same thing between Bitcoin clones (which unfortunately isn't usable except on testnets because nLockTime is non-standard).

The two AT instances (one on each blockchain) have "timeout refunds" and the need to send a "secret" that both ATs hold the hash of (as you can't reverse a hash the secret cannot be determined except through brute force which would never be practical).

Once the initiator sends the secret to the AT on the second blockchain the creator of that AT sends the secret back to the AT on the first blockchain. As ATs act as their own accounts they automatically do the escrow (and unlike TierNolan's approach there is no issue of tx malleability).

You can read the details here: http://ciyam.org/at/at_atomic.html

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
davidpbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 531
Merit: 260


Vires in Numeris


View Profile WWW
December 01, 2014, 01:58:04 PM
 #53

I'm an original Exodus investor, but I'm also an Maidsafe holder and I'm concerned for both. I've been directed to a few things regarding Maidsafe's plans for a possible mastercoin collapse, and I'll read those.

I don't see how Mastercoin's fate affects Maidsafe holders. As I understand it, Safecoins will exist regardless once that network goes to ~beta and as I understand it that will be the end of Maidsafe's engagement with Mastercoin or BTC blockchain.. except for their MSC holdings which will either become of no consequence or will become useful to them later.


I'm tempted to think the core question maybe- is Mastercoin a great idea with a bad team? Counter-party seems to have settled that question, which the begs, what can be done to fix this and turn things around? The other concern is that with the track record the project has, maybe our main impediment is JR at the helm- despite it being his baby. By forking mastercoin we don't destroy his mastercoin, we simply take those who are still left, and still interested and build our own project. I don't think I'm the only one here.

You make valid points and there is no doubt Mastercoin's engagement with community and opportunities could be much better.

Certainly, I would like to see those core to the project respond in some way that suggests refocusing or at least a restated intent, in order they can encourage us that all is well.

The only point I would add is that if such turnaround can be acheived with JR on board, then that would be hugely advantagous. Splitting what is one of the bigger offerings in Bitcoin2.0 space, at such an early stage, might be an error, for the all the good intentions.

Those are rare people, that are good at all aspects of business. Management; Productivity; and Adminsitration are very different skills. Fair questions then about who leads Mastercoin and how, given the state of play.

฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
StarenseN
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1362



View Profile
December 01, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
 #54

following
crazy_rabbit (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
December 01, 2014, 03:22:44 PM
 #55

I'm an original Exodus investor, but I'm also an Maidsafe holder and I'm concerned for both. I've been directed to a few things regarding Maidsafe's plans for a possible mastercoin collapse, and I'll read those.

I don't see how Mastercoin's fate affects Maidsafe holders. As I understand it, Safecoins will exist regardless once that network goes to ~beta and as I understand it that will be the end of Maidsafe's engagement with Mastercoin or BTC blockchain.. except for their MSC holdings which will either become of no consequence or will become useful to them later.
[/quote]


I think you're right about that. I didn't understand their plans so well before. My other issues still hold water though.
Quote
I'm tempted to think the core question maybe- is Mastercoin a great idea with a bad team? Counter-party seems to have settled that question, which the begs, what can be done to fix this and turn things around? The other concern is that with the track record the project has, maybe our main impediment is JR at the helm- despite it being his baby. By forking mastercoin we don't destroy his mastercoin, we simply take those who are still left, and still interested and build our own project. I don't think I'm the only one here.

You make valid points and there is no doubt Mastercoin's engagement with community and opportunities could be much better.

Certainly, I would like to see those core to the project respond in some way that suggests refocusing or at least a restated intent, in order they can encourage us that all is well.

The only point I would add is that if such turnaround can be acheived with JR on board, then that would be hugely advantagous. Splitting what is one of the bigger offerings in Bitcoin2.0 space, at such an early stage, might be an error, for the all the good intentions.

Those are rare people, that are good at all aspects of business. Management; Productivity; and Adminsitration are very different skills. Fair questions then about who leads Mastercoin and how, given the state of play.


Well I hope we can hear from them on this thread! I think we would all like to know some answers. :-)

more or less retired.
EvilDave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 01, 2014, 03:23:41 PM
 #56

Quote
Here's another question then- if something like maidsafe choose not to move over to counterparty, could we still use Vennd to port the tokens over to Counterparty so we could more easily buy/sell/whatever with them on counterparty, and then 'cashout' to move them back to mastercoin?

A gateway that allows to move between both protocols? This is interesting. Politics aside, like erasing JR's stash, I'm more interested in the technical side of things.

Because there is no fixed conversion rate of MSC/XCP and XCP/MSC, proxy tokens on each side would have to be created.

So how are tokens transfered between both protocols? I guess the easy way is to use a third party (e.g. Vennd) that has knowledge about both sides and acts as mediator, but I'm wondering, if there is an alternative without a centralized, single point of failure.

I'm just going to tiptoe into this topic and mention NXT a few times.......the above exchange scenario can be run effectively using Nxts Asset Exchange and/or MultiGateway. There will need to be some coding done to get MSC and XCP gateways up, but nothing major. Could be up and running before the end of the week, if you feel the need to rush.

Nxt will release its Monetary System feature with the coming update, allowing you to issue custom made Nxt-backed currencies.
Of course, there is a natural desire for MSC to stay within the BTC eco-system, but take a good look at Nxt. It's in a strong position right now, and the underlying technology has proved to be rock-solid over the last year.

Did I mention that Nxt is committed to open-source principles ?
If MSC/Maidsafe/whoever decide to move over to the Nxt blockchain, they are completely free to do so.
No need to ask permission from anyone, just do it. The Nxt community will be happy to provide support.  

Edit:
Heres an MS overview from our Devs:
https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/136/monetary-system

Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
Love your money: www.nxt.org  www.ardorplatform.org
www.nxter.org  www.nxtfoundation.org
JohnnyBTCSeed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 01, 2014, 05:22:44 PM
 #57

Can the "community" get an update on how your "last community" funds were spent? with a comparison and cost analysis to the only other project out there?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vision of a community driven model


http://blog.mastercoin.org/2014/10/31/the-great-transition/
Oct 31 2014
David A. Johnston
Chairman of the MSC Foundation Board of Directors


Many in the community are asking: What will happen when the funds originally contributed to develop the MSC protocol are all spent? Its an important question and rather than leave people guessing, here I will outline the plan moving forward.

community sponsorships will make it possible for the core developers of Omni Wallet and the Omni Core implementations to continue and expand their work on these open source projects.

My goal is to launch January 1st 2015 with a new entity and a clear path forward for the community. That way there is a smooth transition from the existing Foundation to the new Omni Foundation.

In order to fully embrace this vision of a community driven model, there has been a planned election of new board members for the MSC Foundation.


JohnnyBTCSeed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 01, 2014, 05:39:31 PM
 #58

Maybe a possible solution would be for JR to agree to lock the bulk of his coins into an escrow vault of some-kind that puts a time-lock / yearly withdrawal limit as insurance that he can't crash the market.
davidpbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 531
Merit: 260


Vires in Numeris


View Profile WWW
December 01, 2014, 06:17:05 PM
 #59

Maybe a possible solution would be for JR to agree to lock the bulk of his coins into an escrow vault of some-kind that puts a time-lock / yearly withdrawal limit as insurance that he can't crash the market.

Yes, that could work. A strong move in that direction should give new investors another reason to look to MSC. Currently the market does appear stalled and badly undervalued.

A statement on the limits to the volume in the sell side from JR coupled with a clearer effort to communicate where developments are relative to utility, can only help. The only factor might be the size of whatever JR's holding is now and whether such a statement would suggest an inevitable sell with a volume relative to the buy side that might pose a problem. Given the intention to rebrand in the new year as above, perhaps there is an opportunity to fix what seems to be a stalled market and then engage a wider community through 2015. I don't know how dependant Mastercoin devs are on JR's selling. Perhaps a break for six months of any risk of his selling beyond what the market buy side will easily accommodate would be useful too.

฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
udecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 142
Merit: 252


View Profile
December 01, 2014, 07:01:55 PM
 #60

Hello folks, Craig from Mastercoin here.

While I certainly can admit that our team’s communication with the community can be improved, the talk of forking the protocol likely takes us down the wrong path.  If the issue is with JR’s holdings, remember that the bulk of the funds used in development came from JR in the form of BTC during the crowdsale last year.  Those are legitimately purchased tokens.  The same can be said for large NXT holders, where it appears this is less of an issue (although why large anonymous holders is better, from the community’s perspective, is a mystery to me).

With regards to the progress on the platform and protocol, including new issuers, let me provide some recent news, as it appears the really good news doesn’t get spread (all of our /r/Bitcoin links get deleted shortly after being posted….):

1. Integration of Master Core with large partners is increasing rapidly.  Bitfinex, Expresscoin, GoCoin, ZenBox, HolyTransactions (among others) have all integrated in the past two weeks.  More wallet integrations are coming soon as well. 
2. The Decentralized Exchange phase II is in testing currently on testnet (sneak peek at testnet.omniwallet.org) with release before the end of the year.
3. Master Core QT wallets for Linux, Windows and OS X are also in testing, and we will release a testnet version imminently (which will include DEx Phase II UI).
4. Larger issuers such as Tether (of which I am involved), Factom, HopeGold, etc are only a few of the larger, announced issuers taking advantage of the protocol.  The feedback we receive from major issuers (most unannounced) are that the Master Protocol (soon to be re-branded Omni), is the preferred platform due to ongoing development to the core protocol and software, and the expertise within the team.
5. The move from crowdsale financed development to community sponsorship is taking hold well with these larger issuers (and several of the smaller ones).
6. We have contracted with a well-known crypto firm to redesign OmniWallet UI from the ground up, and we’re in final review of this interface.  It should be implemented along with the DEx Phase II release before the end of the year.

Some of the other items being discussed are which smart contract technologies to leverage going forward, and how we can coordinate interop with other technologies such as Ethereum, Sidechains, etc.  Our focus is not to be an isolated island of functionality, but instead to be a bridge between complimentary technologies.  The partnerships we have made are extremely strong, and as they get announced the rest of the community will see the results.

In short, adoption of the platform is growing, but most of it is occuring quietly in the background.  Our progress has been dictated by making sure what we release is rock solid, as the possibility of disabling features after release due to problems is unacceptable.  This may not happen as quickly as everyone would like, but it’s prudent and I firmly believe that the platform is being adopted by so many third parties because of the quality of the work in each release.  We are constantly told how easy it is to complete an integration with Master Core.  The same can’t be said for other platforms.  As we continue to become integrated with other large partners (again, several of which are unannounced), it should become evident how strong of a platform we have.

Do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions.

Craig



]
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!