Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

The increasingly used Core challenge to use Doge over BCH cuz fees can be countered with :

1. Why you like inflationary coin?
2. The inflationary block rewards helps keep fees low

 

[cypherdoc]

this actually sounds pretty good. how easy or not is this to add to BCH?:

https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[sickpig]

this actually sounds pretty good. how easy or not is this to add to BCH?:

https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki

At worse once core has the job done we could port over Bitcoin Cash client, or if we menage to increase the dev pool talents of BCH, we could shortcut it and implement by ourselves. @deadalnix already did some work on Schnorr in the past maybe he has more insights to give you a better answer.

 

[cypherdoc]

looks like Blockstream has abandoned it's SPV proof based sidechain concept for Liquid all-in. fine, if you like centralized federated server models:

https://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-to-let-users-issue-tokenized-assets-on-liquid-sidechain/

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

 

[Norway]

So this is what a BCH boardroom meeting looks like

Looks like this Tokeda-project doesn't want competition from OP_GROUP.

@Emil Oldenburg and @theZerg is facing a wall of bureaucracy and resistance/trolling.

 

[AdrianX]

@theZerg and programmer team, some positive user feedback on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8xid3h/bitcoin_unlimited_cash_edition_app_impressions

 

[lunar]

This is some next level stuff. Just for testing right now, but can't wait to give it a try.

P2P betting on BCH

https://www.fifa2018.cash/

If i understand correctly Keyport (https://www.keyport.cash/) is acting as an Oracle.

 

[79b79aa8]

well keyport is manually entering results, so not at all a trustless or independent oracle. it would be a risky mess if real money started to flow through that.

but its a fun mockup until OP_DATASIGVERIFY goes live.

 

[AdrianX]

@theZerg thanks for posting this https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8xov48/group_tokenization_proposal/ I just watched the video and was it painful.

My feedback, given I'm out of everyone's loop.

There seems to be a push to allow tokenization the blockchain and this push seems to have a requirement to satisfy an agenda.

I haven't read your new proposal, but I think I get the gist.

Why do we need one solution to provide every token variation? Managed tokens are different from trust free tokens it was frustrating to see everyone talking past each other the two ideologies serve two separate markets.

All the cases made for why a company would not use GROUP tokens are just justifications for why a company would choose a managed token from another tokenization proposal. They are week arguments.

What seems so crazy to me is the notion of issuing a state currency as a token or previously a sidechain underwritten by Bitcoin. This sounds good and all but I don't see a much benefit to doing this with BCH. Someone needs to make a good case for it, but it just seems like a bad solution to the problem of issuing money. BCH solves this problem.

The criticism I understood was who is paying for the benefits in the token. I understand to transfer the token you need to pay a fee in BCH so technically the user is paying the miner for a service as the token is in effect a colored coin and uses more data than a typical transaction when transferred.

The concerns I was seeing was a projection that people seem to want to issue a more valuable currency as a currency on the BCH network and use the BCH miners to secure it. While the transaction fees would be higher and paid in BCH, I see no reason to do this, crazy ICO scams aside. So what would stop someone from issuing currency on top of BCH using GROUP?

For the record, I value decentralized assets being issued on the blockchain
however, I wouldn't like to see Etherium type ICO's appearing on BCH.

What are ways you think the GROUP token could evolve and what would be the limitations?

 

[Norway]

@AdrianX
I think it would be great if a country issued their fiat on BCH. In the long run, it would just strengthen BCH and the fiat issued on BCH will lose because it's inflationary (they can't stop printing more).

It's the perfect trap for central banks.

 

[Norway]

"There is a debate right now among the Bitcoin Cash developers and stakeholders about tokens. I believe that we need tokens that are permissionless, unstoppable, anonymous, peer-to-peer, irreversible, trustless. Few people contest these requirements, but the debate have somewhat been over what trustless and permissionless actually means."

@Emil Oldenburg have written about GROUP and Tokeda here:

https://www.yours.org/content/what-is-trustless-and-permissionless--dffa7e26309e#

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

Managed tokens are different from trust free tokens it was frustrating to see everyone talking past each other the two ideologies serve two separate markets.

Would the players (or some of them) characterize the situation as this? This makes it seem there could be unnecessary confusion about what they are trying to accomplish.

 

[Norway]

In the (OP_)GROUP meeting, there was raised concern regarding GROUP's potential to impact BCH's function as money in a negative way.

But I don't think this is any different from Memo.cash becoming a huge success. And I don't see this as a problem since the transactionfees are paid in BCH and growing the adoption of BCH.

Unless there are some computational problems GROUP introduce that doesn't scale like regular transactions. Am I missing something here?

 

[Norway]

And if all transactions and aspects of Tokeda is controlled by the issuer, why bring bitcoin into it in the first place? Could Tokeda work just as fine without bitcoin?

 

[lunar]

In the (OP_)GROUP meeting, there was raised concern regarding GROUP's potential to impact BCH's function as money in a negative way.

I don't quite understand it myself either, although I believe the root of the concerns lie in the legal aspects of what qualifies under current Securities Laws US/EUR. Pretty much every token out there, and the majority of the so called crypto coins, will be classified as regulated(able) securities. Which means the law will come down heavy on any Teams or Devs or companies issuing/working with such tokens.

My general understanding (ELI5 level) is issuing tokens or currencies on top ( hashed into ) BCH is ok, but altering the protocol so they become issued within the chain makes BCH a regulatable security itself. ie currently BCH is a security, but it falls outside of what can be regulated, as it's primary function is cash. (money)

There's lots of nuance here, so we desperately need some legal experts to help out. Any Securities lawyers in the house?

 

[79b79aa8]

@Norway - Tokeda can't do it alone, it needs hashrate.

@AdrianX , @SPAZTEEQ - it does seem evident that if the proposals are not incompatible, both could be developed and tested, in preparation for businesses and miners to get behind one or both. but of course the devs would like to have a unified proposal that can just get merged. it does not look likely, the underlying philosophical differences are vast.

 

[Norway]

Gavin is sharing his thoughts on GROUP:

[doublepost=1531314188][/doublepost]

@Norway - Tokeda can't do it alone, it needs hashrate.

What exactly does Tokeda need hashrate for?

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

And if all transactions and aspects of Tokeda is controlled by the issuer, why bring bitcoin into it in the first place? Could Tokeda work just as fine without bitcoin?

Perhaps non-repudiation of state & time-stamping.