Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

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.

Yes this sums it up, one group sat on a boat in Hong Kong and in a constructive environment decided how to proceed the BU group is being brushed aside.
[doublepost=1531325873,1531324990][/doublepost]

But I don't think this is any different from Memo.cash becoming a huge success.

It's different in that the property title is being secured and transfers by miners, memo.cash is just using bitcoin. I see a future where property titles can be like cash but people are not having the appropriate conversations in public so not yet.

Honestly critical feedback on that meting was embarrassing for BCH. GROUP opponents were asking "Why" and then closing with we have our solution and people don't what your solution because you can't justify a use case with projected demand. Like saying well if you cant tell me how many people are going to use Bitcoin and what they are going to use it for then I'm opposed to developing it.

Proponents of Group were asking for feedback on the proposal and weren't getting any. There is an extreme low level of trust there. Next time I recommend a face to face discussion on a boat in Hong Kong, that bond seems strong. Although the ideas for their tokens are good they are not serving the same needs and the opponents to colored coins are behaving like Coreans.

 

[cypherdoc]

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)

this seems right. except that "it falls outside of what can be regulated" is really b/c it is a "decentralized protocol".

if you place known identfiable stake-holding devs in possession of newly issued tokens within the BCH protocol, it seems to me you're asking for regulation of the BCH protocol.
[doublepost=1531332485][/doublepost]

Perhaps non-repudiation of state & time-stamping.

does Tokeda utilize OP_RETURN? if so, doesn't that provide non-repudiation?

 

[Norway]

Perhaps non-repudiation of state & time-stamping.

Yes, Tokeda can prove time stamped historic states. Like putting a hash of your database on BCH every 10 minutes.

But it doesn't change much when the issuer can write the present as he please all the time.

There are no censorship restistance here, not much value added (but some value, I agree).

Fungibility is on a scale, it's not linear.

EDIT: Oh shit, that came out wrong. I meant:
Fungibility is on a scale, it's not binary.


We all know this. A token mixer would strengthen the fungibility of the token and give it more value.

A $1000 USD giftcard from Victorias Secret is less valuable to me now than when I had a girlfriend / cross-dressed (pick your option) if I can't sell it without Victorias Secret's permission.

They would probably say no to a transfer of the card, so they don't have to redeem it with lingerie.

Just like when you want your money back in a store for a product, and they say no, but you can get another product for the same price.

In real life, we see merchants choose different paths regarding the fungibility of giftcards/tokens depending on the situation. Some exploit the lack of fungibility, while other embrace fungibility.

Case 1:
- I want my money back for this shitty product!
- No, but you (and nobody else) can pick another product.

They just want turnover/income there and then. To close a sale.

Case 2:
You can't go to the music concert for some reason and want to sell your ticket.

In this case, the issuer wants the token to be fungible. Because they want people coming to the concert and buy a lot of beer.

When it comes to flight points / "loyalty programs", these two different situations can also occur.

Sometimes a shop wants you (and nobody else) to be a trained animal and repeat your visit to the store until it becomes a habit and you just do it. These shops want you to be loyal and not able to sell your bonus points to anybody else.

In other cases, let's say an airline, it's just a bribe/kickback. This is when you order the plane ticket, but your employer pays the bill. The airline doesn't give a shit if you spend your points for a vacation or if you sell the points to someone else who go on vacation. They just want you to book the ticket through them and give you something useful back. Fungible flight points are more useful to the customer than non-fungible points, and the airline don't care who sits in the seat on the flight to Hawaii.

 

[cypherdoc]

"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#

i disagree with the premise of that article. author wants to put tokens on the same "level" (within the protocol) as BCH coins themselves. what justification is there for this equal treatment? esp when they have no fixed supply restraints, afaict?
[doublepost=1531334968][/doublepost]also, how is Tether an example of what he's advocating? Tethers are issued on the Omni Protocol (old Mastercoin) which utilize OP_RETURN. since those are prunable, they have no longterm bloating concerns and can be argued to be "outside" the protocol.

 

[Norway]

One drink later, pondering this issue further, it becomes more clear to me.

Businesses that think long term and want happy customers want permissionless tokens (GROUP), even though they may lose the opportunity to rip off their customer at some point.

Businesses that think short term, like a tourist trap where they know you will never come back, want to lock you in and exploit the lack of fungibility/options of the token at hand, let's say the receipt for the miniature sphinx statue that fell apart the moment you walked out the door of the tourist shop.

It reminds me of IKEA's return policy for products. If you for some reason just didn't like what you bought, they just give you the money back when you return the product unpacked in a pile of nuts, bolts and plywood, no questions asked. And this actually makes the price of the products cheaper, because they don't have to spend manpower to discuss the reasons and so forth while they get happy customers that are not afraid to spend the next time.

I think long term focused businesses want to issue tokens with permissionless transfers, while the street hustlers will just use Tokeda.

 

[cypherdoc]

https://www.yours.org/content/on-group--there-is-no-such-thing-as-permissionless-transfer-of-redeema-7c1714cff413/

 

[Tomothy]

So, I felt like Deadalnix had a good comment about Omni running off BTC the flipside I guess is Group Op makes things easier to do and we want more tokens on BCH i guess? This is all pretty dense so as I'm a lay person, for me, it's tough to digest. Is there a valid concern that adding GroupOp could detract from usage of BCH? Also, can someone explain to me how it doesn't create issues with the abstraction later but the prior version had done that?

More importantly though, I really liked this option of SITO https://github.com/awemany/sito so why wouldn't something like that be better? A token is a token is a token... It's whatever you say it is, right?

 

[cypherdoc]

http://media.lokad.com/bitcoin/tokeda-2018-04-30.pdf

 

[Tomothy]

"The author also argues that Tokeda is a provable way to incentivize miners to foster a token-driven economy backed by Bitcoin, instead of expecting the miners to subsidize tokens operated over Bitcoin." Since when you start to get into these weeds, it's all technobabbel to me, is this an accurate description of the different ways of dealing with miners?

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
This is a copy of my response to the anonymous "BigBlockIfTrue"'s article on Yours:

I appreciate your classifications of redeemable/non-redeemable tokens. We need these kinds of frameworks/terms to think and rationalize.

But your article displays a binary thinking. It reminds me very much of the Core philosophy.
To quote Gavin Andresen who probably quoted Voltaire, Confucius and Shakespeare (Nice appeal to authority, huh?):
Perfect is the enemy of good.

Ask yourself: What can the bitcoin (BCH of course) blockchain provide for Tokeda or GROUP?

The bitcoin invention creates censorship resistant transactions. And a sound monetary policy.

A token piggybacking BCH will not have a sound monetary policy. Because it's ruled by prone to credit printing humans, not competing miners. But the transactions could be censorship resistant to some degree. That's what the blockchain can provide.

Why do Tokeda need a blockchain at all, if all transactions at all times are controlled and approved by the token issuer? Why not just a database?

GROUP provides the opposite. Lack of central control (yes, to a certain degree).
That's the value proposition.

Some entities/companies will see the strength of not censoring transactions of the tokens they issue. Others will want to have total control.

I think the most successful companies will be the ones that give their customers options and freedom. They will love the lack of detailed control over consumer choices, and have happy, long term customers. They will use GROUP to achieve this.

The losing companies want to control their customers. They will use Tokeda to manage their stupid slaves for their profit.

Both strategies have been proven to work under different circumstances.

It all boils down to two different business philosophies.

 

[Mengerian]

For me it comes down to priorities.

I see the primary goal of Bitcoin Cash as making "the best money the world has ever seen". So the primary goal should be improving the monetary properties, and planning for the network to scale to global adoption.

That said, additional capabilities can also improve the value proposition, and make the money more useful. A good example of this is adding op codes: they are provide additional capabilities above traditional forms of money.

The thing about op codes, is that they are like general building blocks. The Script language can be used in different ways for purposes we can't necessarily predict yet.

The Group proposal, on the other hand, seems like a fairly complex change with a specific set of capabilities. For example, it has pre-defined ways that tokens can be minted, or "creating a child authority", etc. This is different than op codes which can be mixed and matched in different ways to do novel things. I also understand it would create a new transaction format. This seems like a massive change, and if BCH moves to implement a new transaction format, it seems like it would be good to really think it through very carefully, and design a "next generation" transaction format design something that solves other long-standing problems, not just adding tokenization capabilities.

So given GROUP's nature as a fairly specific function at the consensus layer of BCH, I think it makes sense to have a high bar that it must pass. And since it makes design decisions about how the tokens operate that can't be changed (as they are part of the consensus layer), it makes sense to be very careful to make sure these design decisions match an important use-case.

I can see that tokenization would be nice to have, but it's not obvious that chasing the ERC-20 market is the best strategy. It would be nice if we could come up with some way of enabling trustless tokenization using simple building blocks that fit nicely into the Bitcoin Cash conceptual design. I'm not sure whether that's possible, which I guess is why everyone seems to be getting frustrated.

These are just my personal opinions and random thoughts.

 

[cypherdoc]

to me the advantage of solely processing BCH tx's on the BCH protocol (imagine that) is that it incentivizes miners to throughput tx's of a fixed supply currency that has the potential to balloon to unfathomable prices due to "hyperbitcoinization" of the fiat money supply (Forex model). that prospect alone is why i have confidence they will stay impartial on processing all BCH tx's for fungibility reasons alone; a requirement of a sound money they seem to understand. you start muddying that same protocol with tx's that have a variety of ancillary valued tokens attached to them with wildly fluctuating values and i have no idea how they'll respond. do they start censoring token associated BCH tx's for financial, regulatory, or political reasons? that wouldn't look good. i guess you could make the same argument for op_return embedded tokens but at least those get pruned away from the final ledger preventing bloat and seem to be one step removed from the protocol itself which is a good political position in my book.

i have yet to finish reading the full Tokeda paper above; something about the UTX set seems entirely new (UTXO set + full tx data). not sure about that either if it's not reliant on op_return.

 

[Norway]

@Mengerian
If you had to choose between OP_ GROUP and GROUP implementation, which one would you pick, and why?
[doublepost=1531351101,1531350047][/doublepost]Tokeda is becoming the Lightning Network of Bitcoin Cash at a fast rate the way I see it.

It is very obvious and clear to me that Joannes Velmorel is protecting Tokeda when he attacks GROUP. He is not interested in discussion to figure out what is best. He is married to Tokeda and defends this LN-like project (Complex, not finished, not based on a smart basic concept).

A great quote from one of the most intelligent thinkers and a source of inspiration for all of us in the modern world:

"Nerds are the easiest people to manipulate and control. If they are upset, just throw them a Rubiks Cube and they will focus, calm down and be happy."

STEIN H. LUDVIGSEN​

 

[lunar]

this seems right. except that "it falls outside of what can be regulated" is really b/c it is a "decentralized protocol".

Yes, this makes sense, and goes a long way to explaining why Satoshi disappeared and will probably never be seen again. There can be no Issuer, if there were, the liability would be enormous.

Compliance is coming. The sharks have the whiff of blood.

 

[79b79aa8]

Check out CashShuffle and Developer.bitcoin.com .

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

Reinforced notions that BCH is already a beautiful thing... and we can readily observe how easy it is to blow it (looking over there).

 

[cypherdoc]

We're starting to get some divergence in the ratio

 

[8up]

We'll see a 0.2 ratio before one year anniversary of the split.

 

[bitsko]

Anybody think there will be heavy selling once selling bch qualifies for long term capital gains tax?

 

[79b79aa8]

@bitsko interesting thought. off the top of my head, i doubt it will be significant . . . to begin with, that fact only pertains to the US market. in addition, BTC faithful probably converted their BCH to BTC long ago. informed individual investors who decided to cash their BCH out would have done it during the bubble, despite short-term capital gains, rather than wait a year and end up losing in absolute terms. hodlers will hodl. this leaves us with institutional investors needing cash returns. they should have analytic tools to realize BCH is, at the very least, a good hedge in their portfolio.

on a different note: all of you twitter warriors, you need to also be posting on memo.cash . . . hopefully someone builds a tool to automatically port tweets over.