- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
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/
* Dangling pointerAlthough fake tickets are often a customer’s main concern when purchasing from the secondary market, fewer than one percent of orders are subject to fraud.* The reason being: sellers don’t make any money when they sell fake tickets. In fact, they lose money!
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).I think this double spend problem is different from the problem in bitcoin because there is one party we can/have to trust: the event organizer. In the end they will check the validity of the ticket. Maybe we can find a much simpler solution based on this rather than resorting to a p2p solution?
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.Also, +1 what cypherdoc says about CSW's writing. There seems nothing wrong with the mathematical model of the Eyal-Sirer paper, and calling it pseudoscience is just being an asshole.
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.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.
the immediately preceding post.* Dangling pointer
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.You make a good case for/example of how OP_GROUP can be used.
I think most of us are, that's why we're here: sound money free to use for all.why aren't we focusing on what has always been the killer app; sound money?