Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

This is a matter of philosophy. I am surprised to hear @cypherdoc using SEC, his slave master, as a reason to hold free trading back. I don't think he has thought this through.

my view towards GROUP has nothing to do with the SEC coming down on Ethereum ICO's. it's the fact that there is one and only one centralized issuer for every token issued on BCH whether it's via OP RETURN or GROUP. and if that issuer refuses to redeem the token, it won't matter if that token is being traded on an OP_RETURN or GROUP system. they are irredeemable. why do you disagree with this?

 

[majamalu]

@jessquit
Tokens are the reason for Ethereum's success and why shops accept ETH as payments.

Ethereum didn't take off until the fees in Bitcoin started to go bananas. The explosion of the altcoins market cap coincides with the diaspora unleashed by Blockstream.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

my view towards GROUP has nothing to do with the SEC coming down on Ethereum ICO's. it's the fact that there is one and only one centralized issuer for every token issued on BCH whether it's via OP RETURN or GROUP. and if that issuer refuses to redeem the token, it won't matter if that token is being traded on an OP_RETURN or GROUP system. they are irredeemable. why do you disagree with this?

Money during gold standard worked that way. And nobody said "it already depends on states, lets make every transaction permissioned by the state".

The "My arm is broken, so it doesn't mind if I cut it" argument is far below ur standards ...

I completely agree with Norway: If token transfers are not permissionless & confirmed by miners, bitcoin cash doesn't need token. There are better things to do with ur time
[doublepost=1532497219][/doublepost]

I'll say one thing about all these tokenization proposals: they have been uniquely effective at getting this group to stop discussing ways to penetrate the market for cash-like use cases.

Agree. Don't waste too much energy with competing with eth on the token / ico market.

Imho Bch can't compete with eth here, even with group, and never ever with opreturn token.

 

[cypherdoc]

Can someone ask the question better than I can?

@Christoph Bergmann @Norway

If GROUP can't enforce the redeemability of tokenized shares better than OP_RETURN, then why risk changing the protocol just for GROUP?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I completely agree with Norway: If token transfers are not permissionless & confirmed by miners, bitcoin cash doesn't need token. There are better things to do with ur time

OP_RETURN is part of a transaction. The proposed schemes based on OP_RETURN implemente tokens that are confirmed by miners. What do you mean by "permissionless" in regards to tokens?

Imho Bch can't compete with eth here, even with group, and never ever with opreturn token.

BCH can do everything that is interesting about ETH with OP_RETURN based token schemes and without all the horror and unnecessary overload on the blockchain. The "turing completeness" of Ethereum (which was a big selling point before Vitalik decided it shouldn't be anymore) follows the same onchain fetishim which does not bring any advantage over offchain solutions that make use of the blockchain PoW.

@cypherdoc Exactly.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Can someone ask the question better than I can?

@Christoph Bergmann @Norway

If GROUP can't enforce the redeemability of tokenized shares better than OP_RETURN, then why risk changing the protocol just for GROUP?

I think I answered the first part of the question: why permissionless / miner-validated transfers of Token are needed, even when redeemability can't be enforced. If you don't get that point, after all what Norway wrote, I can't help. The question shouldn't even be asked, because it makes no sense outside a "if it's not perfect, we can burn it down" world.

I can't answer the second part of the question. As I said, in my oppinion token are not even worth the discussion we have, and Bitcoin will not be able to compete against Ethereum in this regard. So no, if a protocol change is dangerous, it should not be done. But if it is blocked, it should be blocked for good reasons, and not for a "you can't enforce redeemability" strawman.

@satoshis_sockpuppet

BCH can do everything that is interesting about ETH with OP_RETURN based token schemes and without all the horror and unnecessary overload on the blockchain. The "turing completeness" of Ethereum (which was a big selling point before Vitalik decided it shouldn't be anymore) follows the same onchain fetishim which does not bring any advantage over offchain solutions that make use of the blockchain PoW.

Do you really think that OP_RETURN can do everything "interesting" the EVM can do? If you think so you just have no clue about what Ethereum does on a daily base and why the market is interested in it ...

The proposed schemes based on OP_RETURN implemente tokens that are confirmed by miners.

No. Miner never confirm tokens. They only confirm arbitrary data in OP_RETURN which some third-party databases translate into token. The real token transfer never happens by miner validation, but by third-party-database rules.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Christoph Bergmann
You never answer the question why GROUP-tokens are "permissionless and miner validated" and OP_RETURN tokens not. (hint, they are both "miner validated") And you never explained what you mean by permissionless in this context. The issuance of tokens?

As I said, in my oppinion token are not even worth the discussion we have, and Bitcoin will not be able to compete against Ethereum in this regard.

You will be surprised how much better it will work on BCH.

Do you really think that OP_RETURN can do everything "interesting" the EVM can do? If you think so you just have no clue about what Ethereum does on a daily base and why the market is interested in it ...

I've never seen a compelling argument why all the stuff has to be done in the transactions scripts.

Ethereum fans and GROUP fans fail at the same point: For some nebulous reason everything has to be contained into the base protocol. The problem is, that reason doesn't exist outside of your clouded heads. You gain nothing by putting everything into the blockchain blocks. It's the same mystic thinking that wobbles around "blockchain" in the mass media.

There is no silver bullet to make all courts, human interaction and trust go away. And you fail to see that in regards to the tokens on BCH and you continue to fail to see that in the bigger picture in regards to Ethereum's "scripting ability". Every example that was shown to me always ended in a centralized point of trust. You can hide your centralized service under a lot of decentralization / trustlessness wrap - it will always stay centralized and trust relying.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

You never answer the question why GROUP-tokens are "permissionless and miner validated" and OP_RETURN tokens not. (hint, they are both "miner validated"

You don't agree with what I said, but I explained it, and Norway did. Not only once.

It's like declaring variables

x = "1"
x = 1

only one of those can be mathematically validated. Everything inside OP_RETURN is just text. The miners do not validate it's content.

You will be surprised how much better it will work on BCH.

If you think OP_Return based token will outcompete Ethereum you are up for a dirty surprise. And you don't understand why ERC-Token made Colored Coins / Counterparty nearly irrelevant.

I've never seen a compelling argument why all the stuff has to be done in the transactions scripts.

Ethereum fans and GROUP fans fail at the same point: For some nebulous reason everything has to be contained into the base protocol. The problem is, that reason doesn't exist outside of your clouded heads. You gain nothing by putting everything into the blockchain blocks. It's the same mystic thinking that wobbles around "blockchain" in the mass media.

There is no silver bullet to make all courts, human interaction and trust go away. And you fail to see that in regards to the tokens on BCH and you continue to fail to see that in the bigger picture in regards to Ethereum's "scripting ability". Every example that was shown to me always ended in a centralized point of trust. You can hide your centralized service under a lot of decentralization / trustlessness wrap - it will always stay centralized and trust relying.

You seen them, but you did not believe those or reject them because there always remains a piece of trust at the bottom. If you are not able to see the value in cutting off trusted third parties in parts of financial / organizatorial processes, I can't help you. I see the value how

- ICOs cut out the dozen of middlemen usually involved in such kind of fundraising and
- decentralized exchanges eliminate trust and risks in exchanging digital assets,

just to name two applications on Ethereum which are partly or fully onchain. I'm not so much interested in discussing this. I find it interesting, you don't. Let's agree on this.

 

[Norway]

Can someone ask the question better than I can?

@Christoph Bergmann @Norway

If GROUP can't enforce the redeemability of tokenized shares better than OP_RETURN, then why risk changing the protocol just for GROUP?

The two differences between OP_RETURN-tokens and GROUP-tokens are:

1) Miners validate the GROUP-transaction, just like BCH transactions.
2) Miners keep the GROUP tokens secure. Very hard to take down.

The OP_RETURN tokens are just too weak if put under attack (sybil, DOS) from an outside force. They work - until they don't.

About redeemability:

Let's assume that it's normal to mix/shuffle your stock (digital bearer share) issued as a GROUP token the second after you receive it the first time. The mixer is built into your SPV wallet.

At this point, the issuer has no longer a record of who owns what. He can not provide any relevant KYC to governments, and he can not go after a single shareholder. If he refuse to redeem (refuse to pay dividends or refuse shareholders to vote) he will do this to the shareholders as a group. No blacklisting is possible.

The shares will be censorship resistant. Some (not all) issuers might want this. Because they don't want the responsibility to police their investors. And because the investors certainly don't want to be policed.

Who's the boss here? The company raising money (issuer), or the investors (token holders)?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Norway

>The mixer

That's a good answer .

What happens to the tokens if the issuer defaults?

 

[79b79aa8]

wow!

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/973

 

[wrstuv31]

They only confirm arbitrary data in OP_RETURN which some third-party databases translate into token.

That's what a token is.

 

[jessquit]

... and here we are all arguing about tokens and tokenization and chasing Ethereum into nonmenetary usecases ... look at us. Ethereum isn't even supposed to be money, SMH.
[doublepost=1532595296][/doublepost]https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/91xzru/graphene_got_merged_in_bitcoin_unlimited_client/

Now THIS is a development that applies to "cashlike use cases" that I can get 100% behind. If we can make this part of the protocol it seems likely that by this time next year we'll be ready for another order-of-magnitude bump in block sizes. If we can get from 100tps to 1000tps then we will have really achieved something amazing.

 

[Norway]

What happens to the tokens if the issuer defaults?

Good question. I think it depends very much on the situation. The CEO / chairman of the board / the whole board could be fired by the shareholders, a stock could lose value but probably not all if it's a matter of default and not bankruptsy.

I think these kinds of tokens will introduce new ways of governing companies. The shareholders can play a much more active part, like controlilng company funds with multisig.

For instance, shareholders could give the CEO spending money every month with a multisig on auto. If something fishy happens, they can turn of their auto-sig. In this way, the shareholders would rely a lot less on courts and men with guns.

I want to apologize for calling you a slave of SEC, that was uncalled for.

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/973

Graphene here we come! Great work of the devs!

 

[cypherdoc]

@Norway

i was asking more about what happens to the tokens on the blockchain if the issuer defaults? they certainly become dumb tokens, but my question is, do they get totally deactivated? or can they turn into potential tradable competing dumb token currencies to BCH?

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Not the best scarcity guarantees. Can you ever really be sure those minting keys are inaccessible?

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[lunar]

 

[cypherdoc]

oops. abrkn closes his node, lol:

https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1

 

[Tomothy]

@Bagatell tokens are not cashlike use cases. Cashlike use cases are things like buying a sandwich and paying with dollar bills.

Memo.cash is another non-cashlike use case. You're using the system to pay to write stuff into the blockchain, and BCH is like "gas" for the application.

So we build and observe....

So, I kinda view this differently. I see memocash and other like services as spending/using bch. Just the recipient isn't a single individual, but everyone. Maybe akin to throwing a coin in a wishing well. What would be even better, is if the memo.cash service, added a charitable address as a recipient maybe. So you pay to post your memo and charity address receives a portion.

I get the point that it's not like buying a sandwich, it's more akin to paying a few satoshis towards the cost of an idea. Dunno. hope my point is found somewhere in this ramble.