- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Article by Chris Pacia on tokens and OP_GROUP
https://www.yours.org/content/colored-coins-in-bitcoin-cash-b26804e05964/
https://www.yours.org/content/colored-coins-in-bitcoin-cash-b26804e05964/
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@solex
Thanks for the clarification. I definitely think it's a good idea that developers from different implementations meet face to face to discuss. Bitcoin Unlimited is a very different organization than the other teams, built on membership voting and a broader perspective in discussions and more transparency. Yet we play the same game as the smaller and more nimble teams. It's difficult to make all this fit together, and there is no perfect solution.
I think my reaction comes from the same place as @Christoph Bergmann 's rants. The sentence "It's been decided" is a red flag to anyone not participating in the closed meetings. The big fear is a replay of what happened to Core, and there are many strong interests on planet earth that have a motive to influence the future of bitcoin.
These meetings might be streamed live for more transparency. But it puts more preassure on the participants, and it's a good possibility that the participants just start to behave like politicians in the meetings while the real talks happen outside the meetings. So I'm not sure that is a good idea.
In general, it's a good idea to have as much transparency as possible.
I think it's a bad idea to wait and see what nChain comes up with, regardless of CSW being SN or not. They never delivered the promised SDK that was just one month away last year.
Stalling is the name of the game for TPTB.
Cheers!
EDIT: I also understand that we are in a small window in time to get this baby going, and that generals in a war are not broadcasting their strategy meetings to the public. Once we get BCH going, it will be impossible to stop. But we are not there yet.
Thanks for the clarification. I definitely think it's a good idea that developers from different implementations meet face to face to discuss. Bitcoin Unlimited is a very different organization than the other teams, built on membership voting and a broader perspective in discussions and more transparency. Yet we play the same game as the smaller and more nimble teams. It's difficult to make all this fit together, and there is no perfect solution.
I think my reaction comes from the same place as @Christoph Bergmann 's rants. The sentence "It's been decided" is a red flag to anyone not participating in the closed meetings. The big fear is a replay of what happened to Core, and there are many strong interests on planet earth that have a motive to influence the future of bitcoin.
These meetings might be streamed live for more transparency. But it puts more preassure on the participants, and it's a good possibility that the participants just start to behave like politicians in the meetings while the real talks happen outside the meetings. So I'm not sure that is a good idea.
In general, it's a good idea to have as much transparency as possible.
I think it's a bad idea to wait and see what nChain comes up with, regardless of CSW being SN or not. They never delivered the promised SDK that was just one month away last year.
Stalling is the name of the game for TPTB.
Cheers!
EDIT: I also understand that we are in a small window in time to get this baby going, and that generals in a war are not broadcasting their strategy meetings to the public. Once we get BCH going, it will be impossible to stop. But we are not there yet.
Last edited:
To add to all this, there is another token scheme in the works by a luminary in the space (not CSW, though he probably has one as well) that apparently requires no new opcodes or consensus changes, works with SPV, requires no layer 2, has no additional burden on miners, and keeps the cash use as a definite first-class citizen with the aim of preserving everything Bitcoin does as money without messing with existing miner and investor incentives and may therefore be especially appealing to @cypherdoc and others.
It also takes advantage of the fact that, as @witly and others have noted, tokens frequently involve a measure of trust in the issuer.
The project is under wraps for now as it is brand new, but will apparently be unveiled after more review.
It also takes advantage of the fact that, as @witly and others have noted, tokens frequently involve a measure of trust in the issuer.
The project is under wraps for now as it is brand new, but will apparently be unveiled after more review.
Last edited:
Let's not prepromise, because then I have to pre-disagree 
. That proposal is not P2P tokens. It's a centralized database that uses BCH as storage.
. That proposal is not P2P tokens. It's a centralized database that uses BCH as storage.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
I've brought up this point and what I've heard is the following: if the organizer is trusted but technically ill-equipped, then he won't be able to provide the database servers that allow the tickets to be transferred from one party to another without double spends. Using native tokens, the organizer can mint his tickets, sell them, and then not worry about the transfer of tickets among customers (the customers only interact with the decentralized blockchain).
As I'm saying this, I now realize that the organizer might be better off hiring some company to run a one-off centralized blockchain to serve his tickets. Considering the lower resource usage, the tx fees should be smaller than with the decentralized blockchain, or better yet, even be made zero (the centralized blockchain can impose a ratelimit to avoid spam). Swaps for real crypto would be performed using the slightly more awkward cross-chain protocols like hash locks.
Suppose I'm not in the position to determine what is 'pseudoscience' and what is 'real science' so I have to defer to those who are. In that situation I can't figure out who's the asshole so I avoid talking about it.
Eyal-Sirer are not making claims only about their mathematical model, they are saying it means things to the real world Bitcoin mining network. While they have done the arithmetic correctly, setting their premise, their claim is specifically about the real world network, and how it isn't incentive compatible. I'm not a scientist but I know the paper ignores the fact that miners choose how they connect to other miners to maximize profit, an incentive. This would result in different propagation delays for the honest V selfish miners, which I don't see in their paper, and might challenge their claim.
Last edited:
For concert tickets I'm not sure what a blockchain really adds. Why not just a centralized database with strong passwords?
I think a more illustrative use case might be treasury bonds, where having a centralized database might make the system vulnerable to hacking and "inside jobs" since so much money is at stake. You want a bearer instrument but ultimately it is the faith and credit of the issuing country that backs it, yet certain cryptographic guarantees that the issuer cannot mess with are desired, and some aspects of the token must be admissible in a court of law in case the issuing country falsely claims not to recognize your bond.
Each use case has different properties, like for a stock you want cryptographic proof of validity so an issuer that cannot "accidentally" your shares but can invalidate them through legal proceedings, but most tokens are going to have centralized trust as some part of the deal, by the nature of tokens (AFAICT, a token involving no trusted party at all is essentially just a type of general money).
I think a more illustrative use case might be treasury bonds, where having a centralized database might make the system vulnerable to hacking and "inside jobs" since so much money is at stake. You want a bearer instrument but ultimately it is the faith and credit of the issuing country that backs it, yet certain cryptographic guarantees that the issuer cannot mess with are desired, and some aspects of the token must be admissible in a court of law in case the issuing country falsely claims not to recognize your bond.
Each use case has different properties, like for a stock you want cryptographic proof of validity so an issuer that cannot "accidentally" your shares but can invalidate them through legal proceedings, but most tokens are going to have centralized trust as some part of the deal, by the nature of tokens (AFAICT, a token involving no trusted party at all is essentially just a type of general money).
Last edited:
like i said, any paper that ignores or doesn't even mention the most powerful of all the incentives, sound money, just doesn't cut it by my estimation. miners are hashing to get paid in a new form of money that literally has a chance to Moon way beyond anything conceivable with the dollar. we surpassed dollar parity way back in 2011.
[doublepost=1522523240][/doublepost]
the immediately preceding post.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
I don't think anyone is suggesting that no one should be able to use BCH that way, just questioning changes to the internal protocol to support it in the way some developers would like. Does this example require the OP_GROUP functionality that is being asked for? Would it not be enough, perhaps, to be able to sign something from the address the ticket was purchased with? Or are we talking about purchasing with fiat and handling stuff with tokens on the side. The latter doesn't sound very interesting to me.
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
Hi @cypherdoc, I'm really glad to see you're back and able to use your identity. It's always worrying when people go "missing" and reassuring to see them come back.
The thing is: they stole/destroyed/hugely diminished the network effect Bitcoin had and we need to recreate it. I can only see that happen by attracting loads of usecases and I'm willing to sacrificy some layer-1 purity for that. That's why I'm in favor of both datasigverify and OP_GROUP. I also think we need to improve privacy features.
(I'm sorry, this has probably been discussed at length already. I fell back with my reading tens of pages because of some large issues I need to tend to currently. I found time to watch most of the Tokio videos and I envy everybody who's been there. What a community!)
I think most of us are, that's why we're here: sound money free to use for all.
The thing is: they stole/destroyed/hugely diminished the network effect Bitcoin had and we need to recreate it. I can only see that happen by attracting loads of usecases and I'm willing to sacrificy some layer-1 purity for that. That's why I'm in favor of both datasigverify and OP_GROUP. I also think we need to improve privacy features.
(I'm sorry, this has probably been discussed at length already. I fell back with my reading tens of pages because of some large issues I need to tend to currently. I found time to watch most of the Tokio videos and I envy everybody who's been there. What a community!)
@molecular yes. I think the core of my disagreement with @cypherdoc is that he thinks that sound money is all that is needed. I think that it is necessary but not sufficient. I've changed my opinion because lots of other sound money systems have entered the race, including BCH. So we are competing sound money vs. Sound money and other factors come into play like usability.
there's a fear that if we add tokens somebody will create a fiat token and it's use will crowd out BCH on BCH's own chain. how can you believe that if you believe in sound money? By reducing the friction between BCH and USD, it'll open the floodgates and value will pour into the sound money.
there's a fear that if we add tokens somebody will create a fiat token and it's use will crowd out BCH on BCH's own chain. how can you believe that if you believe in sound money? By reducing the friction between BCH and USD, it'll open the floodgates and value will pour into the sound money.
hey @theZerg . if you believe so strongly in your vision about how BCH should proceed, why don't you release an OPGROUP/OPDATASIGVERIFY hard fork and let the market of free opinions decide? we don't need to sit here all day debating:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/88yhgn/bitcoin_cash_must_work_even_if_people_dont_all/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/88yhgn/bitcoin_cash_must_work_even_if_people_dont_all/
If we have to inflate the money supply every time we add a nontrivial feature, what does that imply about crypto WRT sound money?
I'm assuming that's directed at me. I don't get the question. Who said anything about inflating the coin supply?
Again, why don't you release a hard fork candidate?
Again, why don't you release a hard fork candidate?
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
because nobody wants another fork.
i don't either. that's why i don't think we should be scheduling q6mo hard forks.
the hard fork i was recommending to @theZerg involves one that, according to him, should obsolete all other chains b/c of it's enhanced utility and superiority. or it just dies. if he feels that strongly about it, then he should do it.
the hard fork i was recommending to @theZerg involves one that, according to him, should obsolete all other chains b/c of it's enhanced utility and superiority. or it just dies. if he feels that strongly about it, then he should do it.
Last edited:
Forking inflates the supply because we now have 2 coins and a total of 42 million units rather than one. By June 1 other proposals should be out there and hopefully the community will pick one. If no solution is chosen or if the choice isn't trustless, pseudo anonymous, p2p, permissionless, uncensorable, etc then I suppose I'll consider the option. But there are other options ranging from a separate crypto to a FSH extension block.
