Quote from: bytemaster on October 15, 2014, 03:47:45 pm

Quote from: tbkmcjl on October 15, 2014, 03:43:53 pm

You don't need to convince the Nubits guys simply because -----They think they are practicing Heyek theory of "Denationalization of Money",everything they're doing is in the name of Heyek .

Heyek was an economist who supports competition of private currencies,use a good control method to print good money to maintain stable purchasing power. Heyek claims that if someone can print money and make the money have stable purchasing power,then this money will become good money and win the market competition .

Yeah,well,the idea of printing stable good money is actually kinda cool ----as long as you can keep it good and stable and not fail over time.

This all comes down to the definition of "stable"...

well,Heyek did solved the stable purchasing power issue by market operations like Nubits,but he did't tell people how to make it last forever.
He said that winner comes from competition----meaning a lot private printing money has to fail until a good one can be found.

Probably because there is no good solution to making it last forever.

To play devil's advocate, what are the risks of bitUSD? A "black swan" crash is the only plausible downfall I have heard thus far. I have been thinking of ways to mitigate it.

One possible solution is to develop an infrastructure for bitUSD such so that there is no benefit of holding real USD in its place.. in terms of things you can do with it. Once that statement is true (or even mostly true), a community awareness campaign can be marketed that if someone feels like a BTSX bubble is approaching that they should diversify into bitUSD or Bitassets instead of cashing out into FIAT or other cryptos. That way no money ever leaves the BTSX economy and therefore no bubble could occur as Bitassets are backed by BTSX. It relies on a large portion of the community realizing this and putting it into practice, but it is the only solution I can come up with thus far.

Quote

Some people (me included) are not happy with the amount of rake EBay and centralized poker sites charge, it could be done much cheaper as a DAC. Using DAC technology allows us to compete in many industries on a financial level by trimming the fat and automating most tasks. Although this is only a couple ideas, they are both some of the more apparent use cases where arbitration is needed. We are talking about Billion dollar industries.. I don't see why you would not be interested in going after them simply based on the fact that you can "trust" known companies and are "safe" with them... which is not a fact as companies go busto all the time.

I think decentralized poker is something that might not be as impossible as you think. I've got some ideas - if you'd like to discuss it, we should probably do so in a different thread.

I imagine it's something along the lines of providing low/no collusion game types like heads up poker, fast fold poker, and multi-table tournaments. Any other forms of poker need some form of arbitrators and reversible transactions due to collusion and bots. I don't see why we need to move the discussion, this is one of the biggest use cases for utilizing trusted third parties, so if you can prove me wrong that would be interesting. That would only leave decentralized market places as the biggest use case. Also there is competition in the industry (Nxt is crowd funding as I type but they are mute on technical details as they realize there will likely be competition), so maybe our conversation will stay more easily in between us/Bitshares community in this thread.

My idea was originally to use a "cheating market place" (I call it a collusion dashboard or something like that in my paper). It is basically a decentralized market where people are paid a percentage of the rake and other fees to check for collusion and act as arbitrators. Since writing the paper I have kind of shifted my view on that as there are a lot of dynamics that go along with it. I think possibly giving delegates this role is better as then we can vote in people we trust to do a good job and people that are knowledgeable on the subject. It would be less subject to random manipulation as we have control of who the arbitrators are, and can vote them out if they act up. Anyways.. here is an in depth review of my idea. I wrote this a few months back, but I just made a few edits of some things I learned or changed my mind about. It still has the "collusion marketplace" in it instead of delegate arbitrators though. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hcadwuj6ji633lf/v0.03%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx?dl=0

If you had something else in mind then please do share it, I would be interested in hearing it. I think any way you go about it, arbitrators will be needed in the form of delegates or "collusion market" participants.. at least for all game types and variants of poker. By only doing heads up games, rush poker, or multi table tournaments you are only servicing a small portion of the industry. I am more interested in a poker DAC that could serve all portions of the industry, as I think it will be more popular and profitable.

Ebay on the other hand, you've got a massive problem due to escrow of physical goods. Even ebay doesn't have a solution to this problem, which is why paypal has reversible charges. Again, the best you can do is to emulate the service they provide for a cheaper cost - unless you have all the delegates open up their houses to accept deliveries!

Yes, this is the point.. replicate Ebay/Paypal's business for cheaper. A DAC could do way less than 10% to 15% fees. The only time arbitration is needed is when a transaction is disputed by the buyer or the seller, otherwise everything is automated. I imagine if you also use some form of reputation like Ebay the amount of disputed transactions pales in comparison to mostly happy parties. By the use of a multi signature address arbitrators will not be needed if both parties are happy.

I don't see how the crowd sale is significantly different from Ethereum or Bitshares Music. I guess because it's being marketed like it's a security in a company? I'm not exactly sure if that is the reason for the resignation and I think it has to be more than that.

It is significantly different from Ethereum/Bitshares Music in that mass adoption is incredibly unlikely on multiple levels. Ethereum is coin/application agnostic just as Bitshares Music is genre agnostic. The kind of libertarian-like hands off approach they are taking is not really a popular political view point akin to the "free state project" inside the libertarian community. I think for this to gain mass adoption there would have to be some sort of political/governmental fallout. It doesn't seem that likely to be as disruptive as Ether or BTSM.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea but I think it has little chance of gaining mass adoption and thus being a good investment due to the barriers in ideology and the current governmental systems in place.

Edit: But I suppose you were speaking specifically as to the legality of the crowd funding aspect of it.. excuse my rant.. I just think this is a horrible investment.

I'd like to see an easy explanation of what this is, after 5 min glancing through I still have no clue.

Government services on a block chain.. it is a good idea, it is a shame they didn't get legal guidance or do more due diligence on the crowd funding. Perhaps they will still be successful... either way I'm sure there will be more attempts at it as the idea has been floating around for a while.

I was/am a bit skeptical of it though seeing as though Swarm has over-promised and under-delivered thus far and it was mentioned up thread it is by the same team (or under the guidance of the same team.)

Bitnation is a Decentralized Organization (DO), a for-profit entity incorporated on the Bitcoin Blockchain through the CounterParty technology. Bitnation will offer a platform which includes an ID System, a Decentralized Application (DAPP) Library, a dispute resolution mechanism, insurance, diplomacy and security services and more, mostly through offering a small transaction fee on selected DAPPS downloads and Smart Contracts.

Through making it non-geographical and voluntary, we create a market that is fast moving and competitive allowing for innovation and improvement which the current nation state system is incapable of. Bitnation will aggregate services, both in-house developed services like arbitration, blockchain incorporation, marriage. Additionally, Bitnation will aggregate external services like education, healthcare, security. Services will be available both as independent services and in a collection of packaged services.

Our services will be accessible on any blockchain that is compatible, including but not limited to Bitcoin and Ethereum. The functions of Bitnation will be as “blockchain-agnostic” as possible to mitigate the risk of a 51% attack¹ or poor maintenance of a single blockchain.

As far as we are aware, Bitnation is the first attempt to build a DBVN.

¹ Learn Cryptography, www.learncryptography.com/51-attack/

3.1 Ƀitnation Overview

Bitnation aims to provide services a traditional government provides, including dispute resolution, insurance, social services, security, diplomacy and various packages. Bitnation will identify the best technology out there for our governance services, as well as vetting suitable subcontractors for non-technical governance applications via diplomacy and security.

Bitnation will negotiate prices to buy services in bulk, therefore making it cheaper for its customers to purchase the services from Bitnation than directly from a traditional provider, with a greater vetting of user interface and support. As an organization, Bitnation stands by its principle of being “Borderless, Decentralized, and Voluntary” at all times, having transparency with its plans and finances, as well as solely using and developing open source code.

The key-functionalities of the Bitnation technological platform consist of a P2P browser, an ID System, a DAPP Library with an API layer where everybody can download DIY Governance DAPPs or upload and give away (or sell) their own DAPPs. The dispute resolution and smart contract function key functionalities as well - which supports many other parts of the governance ecosystem in the platform.

However, to clarify some commonly asked question with respect to what we intend to provide, or not provide -- Bitnation will provide:

An ID system, including physical IDs, based on verification and reputation
A dispute resolution mechanism with voluntary choice of code of law, and arbitrator
Diplomacy, as far as global advocacy goes
Security, as in tools for organising voluntary neighbourhood security systems

Bitnation will not provide the following functions or services:

A diplomatically recognized “citizenship” enabling international travels (unless it reaches critical mass adoption)
A code of law (choice of code of law is entirely voluntary)
Physical law enforcement. Bitnation’s primary crime prevention method is its reputation system²
A blockchain or a currency. Bitnation will rely on different blockchains, and will be using Bitcoin as the standard currency, and over time, move to accept other currencies such as Litecoin, Peercoin, Dogecoin, and other coins available on CounterWallet and digital currency exchanges.

Quote from their whitepaper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZiIZ-rmI79HPNbfJ1AXwcgoe8TKMoUMatDf7YfO5LZw/edit

Great post. I'm really liking the idea of a poker DAC. I think it's a natural fit.

How does PokerStars handle collusion?

1. They can see all hole cards to analyze hands. Being able to see hole cards is necessary to be able to combat collusion effectively in game types where collusion is more profitable/likely. I am suggesting the idea that all hole cards be publicized on a delay, similar to how live poker tournament streaming and TV shows do it. This is different to the current online poker offerings, but it is the only way I could think of that would be in a "trustless" manner.

1a. Otherwise if only delegates could view hole cards they could gain an unfair advantage while playing or relay that information to other players whom would gain an unfair advantage against players that didn't have that information. It will take some getting used to for poker players, as in most non-televised poker you can only see what your opponent had if it goes to showdown or they show you their cards. However, I think this is something that poker players could deal with if the rake is much cheaper than current online poker sites.. which I think it very well could be. It puts more of an emphasis on being game theory optimal, which is where most poker players think poker strategy is headed in the near future anyways. You will still get dealt 2 cards every hand with a random deal, and have chances to outplay the other players as people will still make poor/exploitable decisions.. people are not perfect.

2. They have full control over the "poker chips" and cash in/cash out gateways, so they can recompensate people whom were cheated and confiscate funds from people whom did the cheating.

2a. I think we could give Delegates control over the "poker chips" via Delegate controlled multi-signature addresses with which they can reverse payments and control the cash in/cash out gateways. For someone to play poker, they would need to deposit to a multi-signature address and then they will be given "credit" with which they can play in games.. similar to a poker site balance where you play with PokerStarsDollars or FullTiltDollars.. not actual dollars. When someone requests a cash out their play history should be checked to see if there is evidence of collusion or foul play, thus the gateways are controlled.

3. They use identity verification to prevent users from registering multiple accounts.

3a. BM stated the FollowMyVote DAC will have this ability, so we at least know it is possible. We could tie in the identity verification feature from this DAC or implement our own for a Poker DAC.

4. With the ability to see hole cards, reverse transactions, control the payment gateways, and stop multi-accounting, you then have all the tools needed to combat collusion.

4a. Algorithms should be made to detect every kind of collusion that is possible to highlight suspicious players, along with a mechanism for players to report other players for suspected foul play. People then need to analyze the hands and act as arbitrators, which is where I was suggesting delegates be used in a majority rules type manner. In the paper I posted above, I came up with another way this can be done but the dynamics would need to be fine tuned. You could create a "collusion dashboard/marketplace" where suspicious players/hands as pointed out by the algorithm and reported players/hands show up and allow the players to police themselves. You can give players incentive to police the games by offering a percentage of the rake for their participation in doing so, and come up with some sort of voting mechanism which would determine if colluding took place or not.

If you read the link of the paper I wrote up thread (which needs to be updated as I have some improvements in mind), you can get an idea of what the collusion algorithm will be looking for and how it can help in the detection of collusion. Poker sites don't release specific information on how they detect collusion and bots, but I am certain they have an algorithm similar to what I described in the paper to make it easier to do so (along with having a team that reviews hand histories and allowing players to report other players they suspect of colluding.)

Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 14, 2014, 11:40:45 am

It would be the same as trusting a company to perform a centralized service, except that you trust the delegates (whom you can vote out) and most of the fat is trimmed and thus a DAC can most likely perform the service for much cheaper than a centralized counterpart.

But an anonymous entity has zero risk associated with performing a scam and stealing from it's users. A registered company has a lot of risk associated with the same action, which is the entire point of having a company in the first place.

All the artificial trust mechanisms that might ever be possible to put in place to instill trust in an anonymous entity would be able to make such an entity less trustworthy than a registered company at best, simply because there is no legal recourse available.

Mmk, in that case why are you using cryptocurrencies? I guess you analyzed each line of BTSX and BTCs code to make sure you are not being scammed? If Bitcoin or BTSX fails there is no recourse. If delegates collude to double spend there is no recourse. If someone 51%s Bitcoin there is no recourse. Why use decentralized technologies at all? How can you trust the mostly anonymous delegates don't collude with the price feed? How can you trust the next Bitcoin update won't have a back door to steal your wallet? How well did the centralization of Mt. Gox work out for its customers? BFL? Bitcoinica? Virtual Mining Company? PirateAt40? Enron? Bernie Madoff? All of these companies/services, the people that ran them were not anonymous and people still lost all or most of their money. Companies go bankrupt all the time, just because something is centralized doesn't mean it is automatically safer. Both decentralized and centralized services require trust to a point. How many of us read the entire BTSX code base before using it?

Why don't you stick to manipulated FIAT and expensive centralized known services so that you are safe, and the rest of us that don't mind the added risk but like the benefits can use the services I am describing here. If I had 10% of every EBay sell I've made back, the risk of being scammed would be worth it. Furthermore, if I had 75% of the rake I've paid playing poker back in my pocket, I'd be a rich man and could afford being scammed a time or two. That said the risk will be negligible as delegates are incentivized to do a good job by being paid to be delegates and can be voted out. It's not like someone's going to be selling a million dollar mansion on a decentralized market place or playing million dollar buy in poker games right off the bat. Over time as the services mature, trust will be achieved slowly. Trust is earned not given.

People care mostly about money and the costs of services, if a decentralized technology can perform a centralized service cheaper while still requiring some trust it could still be popular and profitable for shareholders.

I think there are some great ideas in here. I think you can use delegates for any of these purposes.

Delegates in my mind are just the DAC operators so you can use them to operate the DAC.

Thanks, I am not claiming these ideas but I would just like to talk about them. I obviously agree that delegates could be used in more ways than simply maintaining an updated client, and it can open the door to make DACs for different industries where everything cannot be fully automated by a protocol. I am sure there are many use cases and I only mentioned a few of the ones that came to mind quickly.

If the delegates are pseudo-anonymous this could be a good thing. I don't like totally anonymous but I also think that for some DACs which are politically controversial you cannot expect the delegates to be safe. It's going to be a DAC by DAC basis but the more politically controversial the features are the less people will want to be public as a delegate.

Reputation shouldn't require delegates to be public. In fact if you want things to be fair it can be more fair if something like a jury would be pseudo-anonymous. If the jury is not pseudo-anonymous or the witnesses are not pseudo-anonymous then they could easily be intimidated. If referees of a sporting event are not pseudo-anonymous they could be bribed or intimidated. When you have voting you need coercion resistance.

I agree, on controversial DACs delegates should remain anonymous. I think we should seriously consider doing a separate DAC to compete with Ebay than the Open Bazaar "free market" DAC that others are discussing. I'm not sure Open Bazaar will be able to separate the drugs, guns, asassins, hacked accounts and credit cards, etc... from "legitimate" business.

Having a cleaner alternative would make it much easier to market to mainstream Ebay-like businesses and customers. I don't mean to sound like a prude, because I don't care what someone does, sells, or consumes as long as it isn't harming others. However, having drugs and such selling right beside legal items can cause it to stay as more of an underground market instead of a mainstream Ebay alternative.

Obviously, the main selling point of DACs is that they are decentralized and autonomous on a protocol level. However, not everything can be implemented in a smart contract on the protocol level. One thing holding back the creation of some DACs is the need for trusted third party services. I believe DPoS and its delegates is a great solution for smart contracts that would require trusted third parties, meanwhile having benefits over current centralized solutions in terms of efficiency, fees, provably fairness, and others depending on the industry. Delegates would make trusted third party implementation into DACs manageable due to the numbers involved with them (trusting 101 people instead of one or a few people), and the fact that they could be voted out of power if one misbehaves or they collude in a nefarious manner.

Even with giving delegates more trusted roles and the extra work it would take and cost the DAC, I think we could still automate enough of it to where we could compete in a big way with some centralized behemoths through lower fees (IE. Ebay and Pokerstars), provably fairness (IE. Pokerstars), and other ways depending on the industry. I have long stated that decentralized poker can be done this way. One of the things holding it back is the ability to combat collusion, but I believe it can be done as efficiently as centralized services with slight centralization of the DAC. I am certain this is a non-issue, it is just a matter of making slight sacrifices to decentralization. The recent conversations about Open Bazaar and Ebay also made me think of it again, as arbitrators will be needed in that industry as well.

Here are a few ways I can think of that delegates can be used in this manner. Don't take this as a complete list because there are many possibilities of this, most of which I will not be able to think of off the top of my head. These are the use cases that immediately come to mind.

Arbitration
Decentralized Marketplaces - IE. Escrow - Abritration of disputes via multi-signature addresses.
Decentralized Poker - IE. - Policing Collusion and Bots - Confiscating funds from nefarious actors and giving them back to those that were cheated through the use of multi-signature addresses.

Moderation
"Legal" Decentralized Marketplaces - IE. Removing illegal items that are for sale in the marketplace
Decentralized Poker - IE. Policing Collusion and Bots - The detection of nefarious activity and investigation into players that have been reported.

Services
Decentralized Exchanges - IE. Multi-Token Decentralized Exchanges - Each delegate runs both a Bitcoin and BTSX client allowing exchange from one cryptocurrency/bitasset to another cryptocurrency in a sufficiently trust-less manner via multi-signature addresses.

Again.. I know that the appeal of DACs are the removal of trusted third parties, but in some cases they cannot be done away with. DPoS itself is inherently managed centralization, along with BTSX delegate price feeds, why not expand the roles of delegates beyond simply maintaining an updated client to expand DACs other industries?