Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations  (Read 1324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline questionsquestions

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« on: November 07, 2014, 05:34:30 PM »

Someone is hawking a new coin called Truthcoin (http://www.truthcoin.info/) that has been proposed as a sidechain to Bitcoin. One of the benefits that Truthcoin has over BitsharesX is apparently:

Quote

...the BitAssets of BitsharesX, but done right (no soviet-style price fixing, or fiat 'name only' assets, and no swapping out the tried-and-true security model with what someone had for breakfast today)...


I am not entirely clear on what this statement means, so perhaps someone can clarify? I am aware that no crypto-currency is perfect, so the points leveled by the Truthcoin author may well be valid and I would be interested to know - if they are - are there any proposals in the works to address them?

As an aside; I also though DPos as one of the potentially best consensus algorithms that currently exist today. Far less wasteful than Proof of Work and with built in determinism to ensure fast and  consistent block creation times.


Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2014, 05:46:43 PM »


Last I heard Truthcoin guys were around here trying to get a developer to work on their project. 

The comment just strikes me as standard crypto-coin FUD.  Once you are tied to bitcoin wagon, you have to serve the koolaid.  You'll see it anytime you are around a group of bitcoin people.

Price fixing probably refers to the price feed aka "training wheels". 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline nomoreheroes7

Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2014, 05:49:06 PM »
Lol at POW being "tried-and-true"...by that logic so are dial-up modems.

And the rest of the claims sound like crap too. Fiat 'name only' assets? They trying to claim they can offer actual USD in a decentralized manner or something?

And I'm pretty sure price feeding has been proven necessary...the market just doesn't work otherwise (at least for now).

I call shenanigans.

Offline Vizzini

Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2014, 09:34:41 PM »
Beware Sztorcs bearing gifts. Academia hatches plenty of ideas, few of them practical.



Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
    • View Profile
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2014, 09:37:40 PM »
its a pretty cool idea and I did email stan about trying to integrate prediction markets via bts toolkit but he didnt get the email and didn't respond back when asking what his email was...

My team @ syscoin is in talks with truth coin dev and he wants to collaborate.. and its actually a very cool idea... the idea is we would dev and use him as a theoretical resource since he did alot of research on prediction markets that you can read up about on his github.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
    • View Profile
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2014, 09:41:35 PM »
Lol at POW being "tried-and-true"...by that logic so are dial-up modems.

And the rest of the claims sound like crap too. Fiat 'name only' assets? They trying to claim they can offer actual USD in a decentralized manner or something?

And I'm pretty sure price feeding has been proven necessary...the market just doesn't work otherwise (at least for now).

I call shenanigans.

You need to read up about it... ie: doctors tell you to do something for you're well-being but it is incorrect and you end up in worse health.. you trust the doctor as a professional but a prediction market would allow for a greater truth.

"Is 1 beer/wine a day good for you?"
"Who will win the next presidential race?"
"Who should be the next president of the United States"


so on and so on... it allows to find a greater truth in a trustless manor.

The guy who wrote that didn't understand what BitShare's is all about, business on the blockchain and not prediction markets.. a bitasset with fiat makes sense in that context... although predicition market assets make sense in another context using the same framework... so if they work in counison then bitshares becomes more than just business, and would have to have seperate distinct section of the framework (or forks) to dedicate to the niche's.. business/truth in knowledge/currency etc.

What I was interested about was building the prediction market for the purpose of voting in this framework... applied to a single problem may help put the technology to use instead of trying to generalize and solve all of the world's knowledge problems at once.

"Should this feature be merged into BTS?"
"Should this developer get funding to develop a marketplace DAC like open bazaar for bts"?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 09:47:38 PM by jsidhu »
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline thisisausername

Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2014, 10:58:56 PM »
Quote
BitsharesX (in at least most of its quickly-mutating versions), is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance for several reasons, the chief of which is DPoS, which makes highly flawed assumptions about human nature, is explicitly plutocratic (and not capitalist), has market-design-features which sap needed liquidity, employs Soviet-style price fixing (which retards the flourishing of the crucial BitUSD), doesn’t scale (technically it may scale…recall this is a micro-econ blog), and is simply/cheaply attacked (or, at least, completely re-centralized) by finding/threatening/murdering 76% of the “delegates”.

I think our market design is likely not optimal and some liquidity will be lost to this (and we could probably do without feeds with a better design -- not that they're really an issue for anyone other than delegates), but the rest of the points just sound like they're from someone who hasn't thought very deeply about these things.

It's really quite trivial and obvious that DPOS just organizes the centralization that would be present in any system rather than allowing it to form in an ad hoc and likely less secure fashion.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 11:00:39 PM by thisisausername »
Pjo39s6hfpWexsZ6gEBC9iwH9HTAgiEXTG

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2014, 11:37:09 PM »
I really don't understand the hate people have to the price feeds. They seem like an excellent mechanism to me. They currently work great, and in the future there will be massive incentives to improve them in ways that make them more transparent, faster and smarter. I don't see why we should ever remove them unless some major problem arises from them.

The important thing is that we move away from trading BTS on centralized exchanges and only ever use them to gap the asset -> bitasset  barrier. The price feeds can simply measure the bitasset pegs, then multiply it with the current internal market price and put the feed at that level. This would enable internal price discovery and would ensure that any sudden breakdowns of the peg would be swiftly corrected.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2014, 12:32:23 AM »
Quote
BitsharesX (in at least most of its quickly-mutating versions), is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance for several reasons, the chief of which is DPoS, which makes highly flawed assumptions about human nature, is explicitly plutocratic (and not capitalist), has market-design-features which sap needed liquidity, employs Soviet-style price fixing (which retards the flourishing of the crucial BitUSD), doesn’t scale (technically it may scale…recall this is a micro-econ blog), and is simply/cheaply attacked (or, at least, completely re-centralized) by finding/threatening/murdering 76% of the “delegates”.

I think our market design is likely not optimal and some liquidity will be lost to this (and we could probably do without feeds with a better design -- not that they're really an issue for anyone other than delegates), but the rest of the points just sound like they're from someone who hasn't thought very deeply about these things.

It's really quite trivial and obvious that DPOS just organizes the centralization that would be present in any system rather than allowing it to form in an ad hoc and likely less secure fashion.
I don't go for labels much, but one aspect of the new system that might appear plutocratic is the ability of larger stakeholders to vote a level of dilution on everybody else, whereas a more free market approach to dilution would allow individuals to determine how much of their own capital they are willing to dilute. Not saying its easy though...

Offline monsterer

Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2014, 12:34:17 AM »
I really don't understand the hate people have to the price feeds. They seem like an excellent mechanism to me. They currently work great, and in the future there will be massive incentives to improve them in ways that make them more transparent, faster and smarter. I don't see why we should ever remove them unless some major problem arises from them.

It's because they are an outside source; a potential point of failure outside the control of the blockchain.

Ideally, the information which is currently injected into the blockchain would just arrive there, indirectly, through arbitrage opportunity via the efficient market hypothesis.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline toast

Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2014, 12:35:20 AM »
Truthcoin is underrated. I tried to jumpstart an independent effort with only basic support and it fizzled. We have a c++ implementation of the critical features but no resources to build it.

I want it to exist...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3507
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2014, 12:47:33 AM »
Truthcoin is underrated. I tried to jumpstart an independent effort with only basic support and it fizzled. We have a c++ implementation of the critical features but no resources to build it.

I want it to exist...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Can we work on implementing something like this in bitshares in the future?

Prediction markets would be an excellent feature to have.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline monsterer

Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2014, 12:49:44 AM »
Here's their whitepaper: http://www.truthcoin.info/papers/truthcoin-whitepaper.pdf

Interestingly, they have a LMSR market maker built in to the protocol to take the other side of every trade, providing liquidity.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
    • View Profile
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2014, 12:59:11 AM »
I thought BM used to discuss this sort of idea so that you can buy insurance against earthquakes or natural disasters etc.. I remember reading  about that.. this was all related to prediction markets.. the thing with it is. it would be a fork of bitshares since all of the assets would be prediction markets... unless there is a distinction in bitshares between prediction and pegged assets or something.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2014, 01:26:12 AM »
I really don't understand the hate people have to the price feeds. They seem like an excellent mechanism to me. They currently work great, and in the future there will be massive incentives to improve them in ways that make them more transparent, faster and smarter. I don't see why we should ever remove them unless some major problem arises from them.

It's because they are an outside source; a potential point of failure outside the control of the blockchain.

Ideally, the information which is currently injected into the blockchain would just arrive there, indirectly, through arbitrage opportunity via the efficient market hypothesis.

Sorry, but I have to rant some more about this :P. Neither of those arguments make any sense to me from a business point of view. The efficient market will not necessarily create arbitrage opportunities because without price feeds the only relation bitUSD has with USD is the name. A severe, but temporary, loss of confidence or perhaps a large-scale speculative attack against the bitasset could make it rapidly go to zero, permanently destroying it. Additionally, without external markets interfacing with the blockchain it becomes completely worthless in general, so theoretically there will always be external poins of failure and price feeds do not really add or subtract from that risk. In practice this risk is solved by diversification, and thus isn't a long term issue.

The general dismissal of price feeds seems to me like another religious fallacy that only exists due to the extremist beliefs of bitcoiners (everything must be non-profit and everything must have maximized decentralization or its a scam and evil!!11), it doesn't actually have a real basis in economics or business practice. /endrant

 

Google+