Multiple competing currencies platform design

[iamback]

This is a discussion I started in the Skycoin thread. I am creating a separate thread to continue this discussion.

...

I formerly posted under the usernames AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, and UnunoctiumTestacles (and a couple others I don't recall). I have particularly relevant post in the On the Longest Chain Rule thread.

...

4. If I was improving Tor, I'd make it high latency and make is more secure, not less secure for higher bandwidth.

Time is of the essence. I am interested in working with highly talented authors, but unfortunately philosophical differences and differences in understanding how to succeed usually preclude such close working relationships.

I think this is too much of me spamming Skycoin's thread. They have been enormously patient with my too numerous posts in their thread. Unless the developers engage me in further discussion, I kindly ask that any further discussion directed at me be move to another thread. Simply provide a link here or in PM please. Feel free to create a discussion thread.

In our case, I have proposed a platform for competing currencies. One of the key elements of my proposal is to have the ability to purchase a unit in any currency that tracks (via options betting) any unit-of-account (e.g. USD or Bitcoin) that you desire. Thus you no longer are tied to the speculative value of the competing currencies if you don't desire to be, and thus there is no longer a need for the market to choose a "winner take all" because everyone can vote for the currency they feel is best managed while sharing a common unit-of-account across multiple currencies. This is the paradigm in money that has never been tried in the history of mankind.

What would the "common unit-of-account" be? Would it be a common coin to the platform, like Ripple or Bitshares, issued in a private offering and subsequent ICO? Or would it be distributed with some sort of proof of work? It could be a basket of assets, like shares in a hedge fund.

None of those. I had already mentioned "option bets".

My idea is decentralized option bets, with two parties taking opposing positions on the move of the currency relative to the specified unit-of-account exchange rate. Leverage relative to exchange rate movement could vary for different bets. When the currency declines in value (an asymmetry in the opposing risks), then the difference has to be taken from the margin posted to make the 3rd party holder of the unit-of-account constant in value. There needs to be auto-settlement so that if the posted margin is depleted, the unit-of-account contract is settled instantly. Afaics, there could be built automated bots which settle and recontract the unit with a new free market bet with new margins posted.

The free market of bid and ask should determine the bets. So the asymmetry will be factored in by the free market of bid and ask.

In other words, I propose an option system where there is no centralized counter party risk. The protocol makes sure settlement occurs before margin is depleted.

We could create a common trading platform for all these competing currencies, i.e. decentralized exchanges with the appropriate logic and APIs. In essense, Skycoin and some of jl777's work for NXT are mentioning some of these similar ideas about decentralized exchanges and platforms for multiple currencies, but afaics they have missed slightly the key insights of what we really need. (Btw, I am still in communication with jl777, but I am not aligned with him and these ideas do not originate from discussion with him)

I am not an expert on options, so perhaps my idea is flawed?

Afair, the BitShares BitUSD functioned differently but I don't recall all the details. (I might go look up the details and edit this post later)

Edit#1: the flaw in my idea is that no one will buy these options because someone else can offer another set of options with the same features that do not have the asymmetric loses (given to the holder of the unit-of-account when the exchange rate declines). The holder would need to pay some cost for the others to take on this asymmetric risk. The holder would have to weigh this cost against the risk (cost) of holding the unit-of-account in its normal form, e.g. USD in a bank. Note we are moving towards negative interest rates so it will actually cost money to store your fiat in a bank or sovereign bonds.


Edit#2: silly me. All I am really advocating is that users can buy puts. The standard models for options apply. The carrying cost of the put will be relative to the volatility of the exchange rate. I think the Black–Scholes model applies.

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/derivative-securities/Black-Scholes/v/implied-volatility

Edit#3: Okay I see that what we originally told Daniel Larimer (bytemaster) in this forum in 2013 was finally accepted as reality and so they adjusted their design to use a price feed:

http://docs.bitshares.org/content/price_stability.html

So the buyer of the unit-of-account is essentially buying a put (the right to sell his currency for a constant price relative to the unit-of-account) and the other party (is not a short seller!) is buying a call, i.e. is paid a carrying cost for offering to buy that currency at the strike price. A decentralized exchange would match buyers of these puts and calls, where the bid and ask would be for the carrying costs. If the current exchange price is the implied strike price, bids and asks would need to be updated as often as the exchange price changes (but this is conceptually no different than when strike prices are constant and bid and asks change constantly as the market price changes). There would be different contracts for different expirations.

So all BitAssets are is an attempt at a decentralized options market. But it is only for their currency and not a platform for competing currencies. And they are using a single price feed voted on by consensus, whereas I proposed that there be different contracts for different price feeds so that each contract can use a different price feed server (more degrees-of-freedom).

Edit#4: there is another wrinkle that can be considered. It is possible to give some of the upside to the buyer of the unit-of-account, so they have no risk to the downside, but retain some of the upside appreciation if the currency they hold  appreciates. But this will increase the carrying cost, i.e. the price the buyer needs to pay for the unit-of-account insurance. Rather the buyer could also obtain the same effect by holding some portion in the unit-of-account (without upside) and some in the uninsured holding of the currency.

Edit#5: the market for buyers of such unit-of-account contracts are people who want to diversify their (e.g. USD) holdings into crypto-currency without the volatility risk, i.e. they want the advantages of anonymity, autonomy, instant transactions, without the volatility of crypto-currency. Or for example, you want to invest in Bitcoin, but you like the anonymity and instant transactions of an altcoin, so you can get both for a carrying cost, where the carrying cost is related to the volatility of that altcoin relative to the unit-of-account chosen. Thus altcoins can compete to gain marketshare and thus less volatility.

Bottom line is competing currencies as true decentralization and more degrees-of-freedom instead of "one size fits all, one winner forced on everyone".

...

Taleb's Anti-fragility (i.e. autonomy) is why decentralized consensus is not decentralized

Thus, I want to make one more concise attempt to convince the developers that decentralized consensus is a lie, and that the only true decentralization arises from a plurality of competing choices.

In essence, all the arguments for a decentralized consensus remaining stable (resilient) against centralization are the stance that the majority (of nodes or participants) will "vote" (or "follow") for honesty over malfeasance. Even skycoin's prior post in essence makes that analogous argument in support of the robustness of the proposed Obelisk consensus algorithm in the worst case scenarios.

The problem with consensus is that it is a "winner take all" paradigm, i.e. by definition there is no way for a minority opinion to be heard. Thus the minority can not act on its wisdom and must instead follow the ("Too Big To Fail") herd. So for example, if a minority sees that the consensus is being gamed some how, and wants to break away (vote with their feet) they can not. Rather they have to try to prove to the majority what is happening and get the majority motivated to act. Doesn't that sound a lot like what we do now trying to convince our relatives of the problems with malfeasance in central banking, politics, etc and instead they either ignore us or they adopt Marxist objectives which further the concentration of wealth, e.g. "blame it all on the 1%, while we demand a government that gives us everything for free because we are poor and redistribution is justified!".

Whereas when there are competing choices, this is truly decentralization because the minority can autonomously break away to a choice that performs better, and the minority becomes more profitable ("smaller things grow faster, saplings grow to trees but trees don't grow to the moon"). For example right now you want to be discarding your Western citizenship and attaining citizenship in the small state of Singapore.

In our case, I have proposed a platform for competing currencies. One of the key elements of my proposal is to have the ability to purchase a unit in any currency that tracks (via options betting) any unit-of-account (e.g. USD or Bitcoin) that you desire. Thus you no longer are tied to the speculative value of the competing currencies if you don't desire to be, and thus there is no longer a need for the market to choose a "winner take all" because everyone can vote for the currency they feel is best managed while sharing a common unit-of-account across multiple currencies. This is the paradigm in money that has never been tried in the history of mankind.

I also proposed that fundamental building block is a secure communication network with hidden servers. Tor is broken. From this communication network, we can actually drive the demand for a cryptocurrency far beyond Bitcoin's current markets. I have vaguely alluded to the details of that and withheld perhaps some details.

For example, let's say a cryptocurrency was run by one group behind a hidden server. For as long as they publish all of the transactions and ledger then it can be verified whether they are honest, the same as Bitcoin's peers verify. If that central server is dishonest, the users can move their value out of that currency. But the users holding the pegged unit-of-account lose no value in doing so. The options traders take all that risk and will be the ones who predict in advance which currencies are well managed.  (btw, this also resolves many of the fundamental issues that plague Ethereum's designs). Even if the controllers of a centralized server tried to block all transactions and lock up the value, they could only succeed in destroying all the value in the coin and thus destroying their own power and reputation. Thus options traders would seek to verify the safeguards in place for the management of the currency.

This is very similar to the way decentralized consensus works in that if some nefarious group tries to take control of the consensus network, then the majority is expected to recognize this and fork away from that. The salient difference is that in my proposal of multiple competing currencies, it is actually very feasible for the minority to vote with their feet. It is an entirely autonomous action (i.e. it maximizes degrees-of-freedom)[1]! No amazing technical assumptions are required. They simply sell the coin that has problems. And the users who are holding pegged units-of-account don't incur any loses.

And there is nothing in my proposal that says the competing currencies can be PoW, PoS, Obelisk, consensus currencies. My proposal sits at a higher-level abstraction.

For me this is a no brainer clear direction. It beats the pants off anything else out there in the crypto world right now.

[1]

CoinJoin doesn't scale and/or it leaks anonymity (e.g. to the masternodes). It is not an autonomous block chain mixing thus it is inferior to one ring signatures. One time ring signatures can be implemented to be prune-able. ...IMO you are entirely missing the point... Degrees-of-freedom and innovation is where all prosperity originates. Inflation and deflation have nearly nothing to do with it, because innovation is: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market And innovation far outstrips the factors you are modeling. I would like to get to the point of how to create decentralized money. I believe that is only achieved through a paradigm that enables multiple competing currencies, not through a winner take-all collective consensus (which I believe will always be a lie about decentralization). Specifically I have asserted (as well did Satoshi and Moldberg) that a widely adopted unit-of-account is the paramount factor in money (so that volatility is not a factor). Domestic businesses don't worry about the international dollar exchange rate. They can plan unfettered by that volatility. All your top-down, cathedral models won't help you. Enable the free market to experiment and innovate. Don't try to proclaim you know the perfect design for all. http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals Knowledge Anneals Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math). Given Kurzweil's sensationalized magnum opus is the technological singularity, it is surprising that he is apparently not well studied in the field of social knowledge formation. Update: you are modeling the factors that were more paramount in the Industrial Age where fixed capital investment was a limiting factor on innovation. We are entering the Knowledge Age where all one needs is a computer and their mind.

Please note that I did not initiate this. Some others are always pinging me to do something about the state-of-affairs in the crypto world. I guess I got to the point where I just decided to do a brain dump in public of what I think is important.

we are doomed, iamback got ignored

Please.

It took him over a year to even acknowledge that he was aware of skycoin, let alone have in-depth conversations and possibly working together all of a sudden now.

I'd have brushed him off too.

You've got that backasswards. I didn't need to come here. I was asked to.

And now I am leaving. Not because Skycoin didn't say "how hi" when I said "jump" but because he is already invested in his current design. And I would be doing something different if I did an altcoin.

I think we would waste each other's time talking. I am don't want people pressuring Skycoin. That is not how working relationships are formed.

Again my best wishes to everyone. You have every right to proceed and I wish you well in your endeavors.

[1715204587]

1715204587

[1715204587]

1715204587

[1715204587]

1715204587

[1715204587]

1715204587

[1715204587]

1715204587

[1715204587]

1715204587

[iamback]

And yes we are headed into a shit storm and need to get focused on the priorities that make the most significant impact against what we are facing within a year. Consensus algorithms are not the highest priority near-term need. The major need is anonymity of the communication network. We don't have that on the internet and we REALLY NEED IT BADLY.

Is this what are you talking about?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=960490.0

I mean this:

http://bitcoindark.pw/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/crossing_the_last_mile_-_telepathy_2014-11-04.pdf

I had shared with James (jl777) some suggestions or opinions on his Teleport design several months ago. I see from the link you provided he has now added a DHT to segment the PIR (everyone sees everything, e.g. BitMessage) space of the anonymity set, because PIR can't scale otherwise. Note James and I have recently renewed our private discussions since it seems we share some of the same goals. I don't yet know if we will work together. He and I are both busy on preexisting projects for the next month or so.

I didn't read that whitepaper, but if I understand correctly how a DHT would be used in this scenario, it means everyone knows which IP addresses map to given hash in the DHT (because they need to know which IPs to send the copies of the encrypted message and only the destination IP knows how to decrypt it).

If I am correct, then this means the hidden servers would be known within the proximity of a few dozens (or 100 or so) IP addresses. Whereas with a pure high-latency onion layer design, the anonymity set is the entire network. So from the standard point of protecting Silk Road type hidden servers from the authorities (note the recent crackdown on low-latency Tor hidden servers where Tor failed spectacularly![1]), then I think a pure onion layer design is superior to the DHT design or a combination of onion layer + DHT. If I remember correctly, James was using the PIR only at the exit nodes. He may have felt this is a way to add more anonymity, and I forget his logic on that. Any way, he and I can cover that in discussions. I asked him today if we could wait until we both have completed our preexisting work load, before digging into deep technical design details.

I am here now to discuss any overviews like this. For as long as it doesn't drag too much on my time for programming.

As for other details about the suitability of Teleport to the need I have outlined, I reserve judgement until I've had a chance to look closely. Surely there will need to be changes. For example, I doubt he is using double encryption with quantum proof McEliece as I have proposed. Teleport might be quite suitable as a first attempt at providing a secure communication for NXT and the SuperNet. I make no judgement on that. My goals are broad in scope. By "multiple currencies", afaics that can include NXT, Bitcoin, and any other currency.

[1] I don't think Tor failed only because it is low-latency. There are a litany of possibilities for failure of Tor, and having exit nodes probably leads to correlation attacks. That Tor is free and thus arguably a honey pot is another likely factor.

https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/hidden-services
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love

[jl777]

I didn't read that whitepaper, but if I understand correctly how a DHT would be used in this scenario, it means everyone knows which IP addresses map to given hash in the DHT (because they need to know which IPs to send the copies of the encrypted message and only the destination IP knows how to decrypt it).

Just wanted to clarify this point. The assumption that the IP address is known is not necessarily true. What I do with Telepathy is send an encrypted packet with an additional encrypted payload and send it to a deaddrop address that belongs to no node and therefore no IP address.

This deaddrop address belongs to nobody but it has a special property, it is within the n-dimensional R-ball so that by modifying the DHT routing logic a bit, it can be assured that the actual intended node routes the packet following the rules all nodes follow. There are no servers and all the nodes are peers. And each node has a public node address that is bound to an IP so the DHT routing works, but the private comms are to the deaddrop address that is close to the private address. As the network grows the number of possible destinations continues to grow (surface/volume ratio)

It is true that with multiple communications sequences an intersection of online nodes that are within the R-ball can be created, but if the deaddrop address is shared within a neighborhood, this becomes like a public phone in a public square. The phone rings, but nobody answers it. Still the message is sent as only the intended destination is able decrypt the extra encrypted payload. Even in a network with a high percentage of attacker nodes, there is no definitive indication that any message was received.

By making a new private address and a corresponding new deaddrop address, correlations over time are prevented.

On the sending side, it is possible to inject a DHT from a random node send via onion packet, so the origin of a telepathic packet has the entire network as the anon set.

By breaking the link between IP address and destination node, not even the sender knows the IP address of the destination, nor do any of the other nodes that do the routing of the DHT.

James

[iamback]

As usual, I will need to have some private discussions with James to understand his non-standard terminology. I must admit I don't understand what he just wrote.

That is why I don't want to do that now, because my past experience is it requires considerable discussion before I understand what he means.

[iamback]

So you are quite right - if I got that correctly - that the first step would be to implement reliable decentralized exchanges.

Why don't you use guys your very impressive intellect identify more realistic targets and implement something that useful and works?

That is my point.

My other point is not to bet the farm on one algorithm or design for currency and instead build a platform for cryptocurrency in general. Synergies apply in spades, e.g. true decentralization which drives demand for the network, which drives demand for the underlying investment coin. Please if you want to discuss it further, please post here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966977.0


Also of course there needs to be a specific currency involved in order for there to be an investment opportunity. And I have simplified idea for that and for how to drive demand for that coin not just from investors but more so from users of the network, because they will need the coin to use the network. No cryptocurrency yet has had a built in user demand mechanism. So actually I disagree with you. I don't think security is the main reason for limited adoption. I have an another idea. The masses (naive users) don't think about security, so it isn't something that limits adoption. Sorry that is poor marketing insight.

No cryptocurrency yet has had a built in user demand mechanism.

Edit: maybe SuperNet. Afair it has a coin, but I am not too clear on the specifics. I believe my idea is different.

[jl777]

@altcoinUK

InstantDEX is in testing now, it builds on the NXT AE that has been working for almost a year. So this is something that already exists. The InstantDEX is designed to enhance it to make it usable like a centralized exchange, in fact we are starting the first GUI using peatio which is open source centralized exchange software. Of course we are removing all the KYC and other centralized things, but the GUI is similar to most exchanges: yunbi.com/markets/nxtbtc

It seems that via different path's Anonymint and I have come to similar conclusions as what is needed, of course since I am not having formal educations, my words are using my meanings and I cant write whitepapers. Still this is the final missing piece that is needed for mass market adoption of crypto. And there will be more than one crypto that survives, so it makes perfect sense to have a framework for cryptos to connect with each other, either directly at the protocol layer or via indirect market mechanisms

Anyway, I still have a month or two of debugging to get SuperNET core into testing for all my major components, so until then this project is to be percolating.

James

[iamback]

James we will have to discuss the synergies and specifics. We will get to that.

[kennyP]

James we will have to discuss the synergies and specifics. We will get to that.

You guys exchanging crypto 'fluids' together is very exciting!! Might finally put this bear market behind us.

edit: on 2nd thoughts I think you guys could change the crypto landscape, and the world

[Bitcoinmeetups.org]

Some enthusiasm here. I had never heard about SkyCoin before.

We are working on a fun project called the Free Services Exchange.


Can you add or request some free services from us?

[Anotheranonlol]

In other words, I propose an option system where there is no centralized counter party risk. The protocol makes sure settlement occurs before margin is depleted.

That's essentially the point of the counterparty protocol.

For decentralised bets you can use certainly make use of it. I touched upon it briefly in the following comment:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg10565006#msg10565006

There is functionality in the protocol for more advanced Contracts for difference and such. It is also possible to run schellingcoin (or similar) on CounterParty as a smart contract instead.

perhaps this is somewhat relevant to your multiple competing currencies platform design:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bc-kZXROTeMzG6AvH7rrTrUy24UwHoEcgiL7ALHMO0A/pub

[iamback]

I had proposed that each contract could choose a different feed instead of a consensus feed (e.g. schellingcoin); however, these feeds will cause consensus verification (e.g. mining) nodes to incur a resource cost (to access the external feed). So there would need to be some standardization of choices of feeds, centralization of propagation of the feeds into the network, and the cost the parties need to pay for this. Again this is yet another evidence that decentralized consensus is a lie and further reinforces the point of my OP about true decentralization.

In other words, I am saying we are probably doing everything wrong. Throw away PoW, PoS, and all that (but my proposal doesn't prevent their participation and they are welcome to attempt to prove me wrong in the market place).

It is also possible to run schellingcoin

Note I corrected the answer on a Google IQ test in which the correct answer I provided is in its generative essence the same logic as Schelling points:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html

You're the captain of a pirate ship...

The answer given above is incorrect. If you offer all the booty to 51% of the crew, one of them might get motivated to vote against your proposal because they have nothing to lose if your proposal wins (and they might want to try their luck at another proposal that offers them more). Contemplate that deeply! Whereas, the correct answer is to propose that anyone who votes NO will not share in the booty. TADA!

[BootstrapCoinDev]

That's a futarchy protocol, for predicting the future, although it does use schelling points to determine the truth of boolean facts.

[iamback]

In other words, I propose an option system where there is no centralized counter party risk. The protocol makes sure settlement occurs before margin is depleted.

That's essentially the point of the counterparty protocol.

For decentralised bets you can use certainly make use of it.

In Counterparty, I can't hold my value in any altcoin (because I like the features of that altcoin, e.g. anonymity, transaction rate, more trusted, etc) and then have my value pegged to any unit-of-account. Thus Counterparty can not do (entirely) what I have proposed.

[iamback]

One opportunity no one in Bitcoin universe talks about

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/04/why-central-banks-buy-equities/

There isn't enough liquidity in the Bitcoin asset to accomodate the $200 trillion net worth. Just $10 billion (actually much less because a market cap is greater than the actual cash invested in the asset during an all time high price, since not everyone paid the highest price) caused Bitcoin to have a severe bubble and crash in 2013.

The only way the liquidity can scale orders-of-magnitude faster is decentralized financial derivatives:

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#financial-derivatives-and-stable-value-currencies

Non-technical n00bs don't understand the technical meaning of "scale", so n00bs please don't waste my time with your nonsense.

You simply can't have the Bitcoin asset go to $10 million (under the false conditions of that false assumption stated above) without killing several billion people.

That is why you must have derivatives if you realistically want to scale in the world's wealth.
 

Sounds like hyperbole...No one thinks Bitcoin will (or even should) go to $10M per coin by 2015...come on dude.

I agree. My posts in this thread are about how to increase interest and capital involved in Bitcoin ecosystem while reducing volatility and supporting a normal rise in the price consumerate with rapidly growing ecosystem and adoption.

Yet the supporters of Bitcoin attack it. Go figure    

Apparently some readers are too stupid (or closed-minded Butthurt) to distinguish an enhancement from a criticism.

Just goes to show you can fool a dog to fight his own tail (and lick his balls and his anus).

Thank for those who have more knowledge about derivatives taking the time to make some explanations. Admittedly my patience was too short to elaborate sufficiently.

It doesn't really matter that some people are ignorant of the utility of derivatives, because they will always gravitate to what is succeeding.

And derivatives boost the ecosystem by orders-of-magnitude, because a large portion of the business world can't participate without them. No hedging, sorry they can't do Bitcoin.

[altcoinUK]

@altcoinUK

InstantDEX is in testing now, it builds on the NXT AE that has been working for almost a year. So this is something that already exists. The InstantDEX is designed to enhance it to make it usable like a centralized exchange, in fact we are starting the first GUI using peatio which is open source centralized exchange software. Of course we are removing all the KYC and other centralized things, but the GUI is similar to most exchanges: yunbi.com/markets/nxtbtc

It seems that via different path's Anonymint and I have come to similar conclusions as what is needed, of course since I am not having formal educations, my words are using my meanings and I cant write whitepapers. Still this is the final missing piece that is needed for mass market adoption of crypto. And there will be more than one crypto that survives, so it makes perfect sense to have a framework for cryptos to connect with each other, either directly at the protocol layer or via indirect market mechanisms

Anyway, I still have a month or two of debugging to get SuperNET core into testing for all my major components, so until then this project is to be percolating.

James

Hopefully you will succeed James, ans I can't wait to see the result.

[altcoinUK]

@altcoinUK

InstantDEX is in testing now, it builds on the NXT AE that has been working for almost a year. So this is something that already exists. The InstantDEX is designed to enhance it to make it usable like a centralized exchange, in fact we are starting the first GUI using peatio which is open source centralized exchange software. Of course we are removing all the KYC and other centralized things, but the GUI is similar to most exchanges: yunbi.com/markets/nxtbtc

It seems that via different path's Anonymint and I have come to similar conclusions as what is needed, of course since I am not having formal educations, my words are using my meanings and I cant write whitepapers. Still this is the final missing piece that is needed for mass market adoption of crypto. And there will be more than one crypto that survives, so it makes perfect sense to have a framework for cryptos to connect with each other, either directly at the protocol layer or via indirect market mechanisms

Anyway, I still have a month or two of debugging to get SuperNET core into testing for all my major components, so until then this project is to be percolating.

James

Hopefully you will succeed James, ans I can't wait to see the result.

Except, and which I forgot to mention in my post, what make you think James that if you put together 10 absolutely useless coins then together those coins would make more sense than they do individually? The coins of Supernet have absolutely no real nor sensible use cases (especially not Opal your crown jewellery which will not be tolerated by law enforcement), those coins that used by absolutely nobody in real world except a few day traders who manipulate the price for pure P&D reasons, so why do you think linking the coins in your Supernet could change the absolutely hopeless dynamics of the altcoin market?

[iamback]

altcoinUK, indeed there needs to be demand for an altcoin to succeed.     

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

@altcoinUK

InstantDEX is in testing now, it builds on the NXT AE that has been working for almost a year. So this is something that already exists. The InstantDEX is designed to enhance it to make it usable like a centralized exchange, in fact we are starting the first GUI using peatio which is open source centralized exchange software. Of course we are removing all the KYC and other centralized things, but the GUI is similar to most exchanges: yunbi.com/markets/nxtbtc

It seems that via different path's Anonymint and I have come to similar conclusions as what is needed, of course since I am not having formal educations, my words are using my meanings and I cant write whitepapers. Still this is the final missing piece that is needed for mass market adoption of crypto. And there will be more than one crypto that survives, so it makes perfect sense to have a framework for cryptos to connect with each other, either directly at the protocol layer or via indirect market mechanisms

Anyway, I still have a month or two of debugging to get SuperNET core into testing for all my major components, so until then this project is to be percolating.

James

Hopefully you will succeed James, ans I can't wait to see the result.

Except, and which I forgot to mention in my post, what make you think James that if you put together 10 absolutely useless coins then together those coins would make more sense than they do individually? The coins of Supernet have absolutely no real nor sensible use cases (especially not Opal your crown jewellery which will not be tolerated by law enforcement), those coins that used by absolutely nobody in real world except a few day traders who manipulate the price for pure P&D reasons, so why do you think linking the coins in your Supernet could change the absolutely hopeless dynamics of the altcoin market?

James is Not just collecting coins, but devs. 400+ person thinktank.

[altcoinUK]

@altcoinUK

InstantDEX is in testing now, it builds on the NXT AE that has been working for almost a year. So this is something that already exists. The InstantDEX is designed to enhance it to make it usable like a centralized exchange, in fact we are starting the first GUI using peatio which is open source centralized exchange software. Of course we are removing all the KYC and other centralized things, but the GUI is similar to most exchanges: yunbi.com/markets/nxtbtc

It seems that via different path's Anonymint and I have come to similar conclusions as what is needed, of course since I am not having formal educations, my words are using my meanings and I cant write whitepapers. Still this is the final missing piece that is needed for mass market adoption of crypto. And there will be more than one crypto that survives, so it makes perfect sense to have a framework for cryptos to connect with each other, either directly at the protocol layer or via indirect market mechanisms

Anyway, I still have a month or two of debugging to get SuperNET core into testing for all my major components, so until then this project is to be percolating.

James

Hopefully you will succeed James, ans I can't wait to see the result.

Except, and which I forgot to mention in my post, what make you think James that if you put together 10 absolutely useless coins then together those coins would make more sense than they do individually? The coins of Supernet have absolutely no real nor sensible use cases (especially not Opal your crown jewellery which will not be tolerated by law enforcement), those coins that used by absolutely nobody in real world except a few day traders who manipulate the price for pure P&D reasons, so why do you think linking the coins in your Supernet could change the absolutely hopeless dynamics of the altcoin market?

James is Not just collecting coins, but devs. 400+ person thinktank.

Yeah, I am aware of that, and regardless of my mixed opinion on James - that he is quite a charlatan terms of how he push his projects and in the meantime he is a very intelligent professional, and productive project organizer and developer - the question remains, why do you think 10 absolutely useless coins thinktanked by +400 strong team will create a useful thing? No matter how many people dream about it, if the use case and consequently end users are not there then the whole initiative is flawed.

[iamback]

10 useless coins won't, but several useful coins will.