0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Some people is trying to bring mesh networking to bitcoin:https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-wi-fi-system-enables-payments-sharing-internet/QuoteIt seems one of the long awaited “killer apps” of Bitcoin is almost here. A new video on YouTube shows off a Bitcoin Wi-Fi hotspot that can receive Bitcoin payments.This means that anyone with a connection to the Internet could soon be able to share their connection with complete strangers in exchange for bitcoins. Although the demo of the concept in the video is quite basic, it gives us a glimpse of how Bitcoin may be able to fuel the mesh networks of the future.
It seems one of the long awaited “killer apps” of Bitcoin is almost here. A new video on YouTube shows off a Bitcoin Wi-Fi hotspot that can receive Bitcoin payments.This means that anyone with a connection to the Internet could soon be able to share their connection with complete strangers in exchange for bitcoins. Although the demo of the concept in the video is quite basic, it gives us a glimpse of how Bitcoin may be able to fuel the mesh networks of the future.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 16, 2014, 02:26:29 pmQuote from: Stan on October 15, 2014, 10:49:05 pmQuote from: fussyhands on October 15, 2014, 07:13:27 pmUSD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence. I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line. This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable. The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.I actually think you are trolling.
Quote from: Stan on October 15, 2014, 10:49:05 pmQuote from: fussyhands on October 15, 2014, 07:13:27 pmUSD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence. I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line. This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable. The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 15, 2014, 07:13:27 pmUSD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pmOr alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do. Moving money around should not cost 3%. It's flipping a few bits. It should cost almost nothing.I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity. In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.I think I finally understand your point of view. You don't care about Bitcoin or blockchain technology at all. You might still care about cryptocurrency in the sense of the push rather than pull model (meaning you sign specific transactions for specific amounts rather than giving away the keys to the kingdom with our current system of credit cards and ACH). What you want is essentially DPOS but where the number of delegates is exactly 1 (the corporation/government owning the system) and they cannot be voted in/out (hey that means you get faster confirmation times and better scalability than BitShares X! ). Decentralization? Who needs it (according to you). Either you personally don't care about decentralization of power, or you believe the masses will never care about it despite the benefits it provides.
Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do. Moving money around should not cost 3%. It's flipping a few bits. It should cost almost nothing.I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity. In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.
Yes, it is using mesh network technology, from here:
Firechat appears to work in a similar way to the much more mature IEEE 802.11s mesh wifi protocol
Quote from: 麥可貓 on October 15, 2014, 03:00:44 pmFor smartphones, iOS 7.0+ and android 4.0+ already have features required to implement mesh networking in you apps, and that's one of the reasons why apps like firechat are so popular these days.I don't think firechat uses Mesh protocol - it might be some other technique like ad-hoc?
For smartphones, iOS 7.0+ and android 4.0+ already have features required to implement mesh networking in you apps, and that's one of the reasons why apps like firechat are so popular these days.
As throngs of pro-democracy protesters continue to organize in Hong Kong's central business district, many of them are messaging one another through a network that doesn't require cell towers or Wi-Fi nodes. They're using an app called FireChat that launched in March and is underpinned by mesh networking , which lets phones unite to form a temporary Internet.
Have you considered the technical issues at hand with this idea?Most existing wifi routers would need a firmware flash to support the correct mode on the NIC. I'm pretty such most mobile phone do not support this either by default.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 02:11:31 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 02, 2014, 01:49:43 pmQuote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 01:25:22 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 02, 2014, 01:08:33 pmQuote from: fussyhandsNo I didn't. I already answered them in a previous post in this thread. To recap: mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it. Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances. For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.What aren't you convinced?Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.Interesting. Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are? Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD? It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions, BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate). I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC. What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account? Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield. Am I doing something wrong? What is the yield expected to be? You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet. By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 02, 2014, 01:49:43 pmQuote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 01:25:22 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 02, 2014, 01:08:33 pmQuote from: fussyhandsNo I didn't. I already answered them in a previous post in this thread. To recap: mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it. Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances. For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.What aren't you convinced?Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.Interesting. Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are? Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD? It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions, BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate). I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC. What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account? Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield. Am I doing something wrong? What is the yield expected to be? You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet. By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 01:25:22 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 02, 2014, 01:08:33 pmQuote from: fussyhandsNo I didn't. I already answered them in a previous post in this thread. To recap: mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it. Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances. For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.What aren't you convinced?Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 02, 2014, 01:08:33 pmQuote from: fussyhandsNo I didn't. I already answered them in a previous post in this thread. To recap: mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it. Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances. For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.What aren't you convinced?
Quote from: fussyhandsNo I didn't. I already answered them in a previous post in this thread. To recap: mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it. Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances. For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.
No I didn't. I already answered them in a previous post in this thread. To recap: mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it. Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances. For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.
But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption. There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption. Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency. And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.Maybe last mile wifi mesh internet connectivity... but that is a complicated technical project. I wonder if anyone will ever come up with something interesting to do with cryptocurrencies... In the meantime I'm seriously considering sell out (at what will probably end up being the bottom of the market).
The banking system is playing dangerous games with your wealth. We cannot rely on governments to properly regulate them because the governments are corrupt and in the pockets of these rich powerful banks. And yet, we are currently dependent on these banks to just live our lives and do basic business in the world. Getting out this system and just using cash is not a practical alternative in this new digital world; and besides that still is exposed to the risk of the central banks mismanaging the money supply (and I already discussed that we don't have good control over the corrupted governments in order to maintain control over the central bank policy). We, the people, need a good alternative. An alternative that by design is decentralized and therefore difficult to corrupt. An alternative that has important rules governing the financial system encoded in incorruptible software, and with astronomically expensive barriers to change those software rules without the consent of the masses. Blockchain technology provides that alternative. And out of all implementations that exist today, BitShares is the only one that provides adequate decentralization for extremely low cost, and it also provides: many essential features you are already used to with the current financial system such as price stability, fast transactions, and security of your holdings (eventually provided via multisig security companies); all the great capabilities other cryptocurrencies also have such as the ability to choose the arbiter (via multisig) who decides on charge backs in case one party failed to deliver on their promise, the ability to make transactions without having to give all your private transaction details to a third-party like a credit/debit card company, the ability to take back control of your wealth even if the third-party security providers disappear, and the ability to make payments to individuals/organizations you want without easy restriction by governments (obviously, the government can technically make anything illegal even if it is difficult to enforce, so act at your own risk); and finally, certain features currently unique to BitShares such as storing the value of a physical asset, like gold or oil, without counterparty risk, and high yields on non-volatile currencies just sitting in your digital vault (much higher than the interest rates you can get from your checking account in a traditional bank).
Well considering that a major way that credit compete these days is by offering 1-3% back, yes I think 1-3% could attract masses of people. BUT, credit cards already offer that! So you're right, this is a ridiculous argument. Maybe there won't be mass adoption...
Most people don't care about being their own bank. In fact they would prefer not to be.
But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption. There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption. Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency. And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.
Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency. And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.
I just don't understand your point of view at all.Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pmMerchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing feesQuote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pmTo entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.So, in order to save 2-3%, merchants will offer discounts? For a net savings of at least 0%, but probably less since merchants will have to offer more than 2-3% in discounts to attract mass amounts of people. In other words, this is a ridiculous argument for Bitcoin adoption.
Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees
To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pmOr alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.First of all, BitUSD transaction fees will always be less than Bitcoins, by its very design. Secondly, low transaction fees will not be the reason "the masses" move to crypto (if they ever do).Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pmBut if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.Bitcoins killer app has always been holding your own private keys. That's the reason it was invented. Private keys + stability = game changer. Simple as that.
Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.
But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:32:03 pmSounds like a stock/commodity exchange. Guess what: we already have those. Go get yourself an e*trade account.Guess what we already have banks too. Go get yourself an bank account ......Bitcoin what the heck we need that!!!!Since when you are trading CNY in stock/commodity exchange ??
Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange. Guess what: we already have those. Go get yourself an e*trade account.
this summer
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 01:25:22 pmMerchants are already using Bitcoin. How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions? Almost none? If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal? No. What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs. 7% improvements are a big deal. 0.05% improvements hardly even register.A business account with Bitpay cost 300$ / month that 3600 $ a year. With BitshareX this could be much much less. I'm pretty sure merchants will care about that.
Merchants are already using Bitcoin. How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions? Almost none? If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal? No. What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs. 7% improvements are a big deal. 0.05% improvements hardly even register.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 01:25:22 pmUser doesn't care about any of that. They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" buttonUnless I missed something there is no "peg to USD", Circle is doing what Coinbase does, exchange between bitcoin and usd nothing much nothing less, yeah you may be able to use a credit card to purchase bitcoin that's about it.Circle is a US company that offer 100% insurance on your found. A guy for China or Greece has no access to it .
User doesn't care about any of that. They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button
Circle is a company that can bankrupt like any other company, or can be closed bu the government, or if US dollars goes crazy well you are screwed, What users will do when they'll know there is a better solution out there and you can eliminate those risks ?
You seems to underestimate the power of bitAssets, there is nothing out there that can replace that. Now imagine if you tell a user, in your bank you can keep : 1 once of gold , 1 barrel of petroleum, 1/2 Google action, 1000 CNY etc., you can trade them when you want, you can sell them, you can do whatever, without the need to go on Stock Market, Exchanges etc and it is global and almost no fees. This has so much value even without yield.
Quote from: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 07:35:37 pmMesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved. Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective ...You have skipped a much bigger problem of mesh networks. They can only operate efficiently if the principle of locality applies to the nodes' communication behaviour. Otherwise, the nodes closest to the high speed internet access have to carry not only their own traffic, but also the traffic of all the other nodes in their downline. Unfortunately, internet traffic today does not meet that criteria.
Mesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved. Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective ...
You ignored the price stability and centralization arguments.
Also, there is still a non-trivial risk of double spend with zero confirmation payments in Bitcoin. Given any fixed period of time, the probability of double spend is lower in DPOS than in POW. Looking at the difference in risk of double spend between BitShares X and Bitcoin in just a 20 second time period is absolutely amazing. I think this will appeal to merchants, especially since it along with price stability means they can cut out middlemen like BitPay.
But fine, let's say you don't think that is a big deal. Fast transactions make the decentralized exchange possible. It would be too slow to run an exchange if the block intervals were 10 minutes. The decentralized exchange makes BitAssets and price stability possible. And of course it will be incredibly useful for later DAC functionality like trading cryptostock (remember BitShares is bigger than Bitcoin).
Also, your argument that the innovations of Bitcoin over traditional financial systems being more significant than the innovations of BitShares over Bitcoin don't make a lot of sense to me. From the perspective of an outsider in the traditional financial system, both BitShares' and Bitcoin's network effect look absolutely puny. I think it's the marginal benefit in the network effect that is going to seem insignificant to the outsider rather than the marginal benefit in the technology. If even a small fraction of outside wealth pours into BitShares (rather than Bitcoin because the technology advantages of BitShares makes it far more desirable to these outsiders), then BitShares can quickly gain network effect that rivals that of Bitcoin. So, I think it makes a lot more sense to target people who are currently outside the cryptocurrency community. And we have the technology to make it palatable to them: BitAssets with yields, TITAN, an exchange, etc.
The Bitcoin network currently spends approximately $500 million per year for its current level of security (based on current prices, and assuming profit margins from mining tend toward zero). And only about a $1 million per year of that is from transaction fees. This is for a market cap of approximately $5 billion. As the value of bitcoin grows, would we want more or less security protecting the network? If we want to keep the network security the same as it is today (which I think would be a bad idea if it gets really big) then you have a valid point. Eventually, as the coinbase reduces to zero, that $500 million has to come from somewhere. You need it to come from a 500x increase in total transaction fees. This shouldn't be a problem if we assume the total transaction fees accumulated grows with the transaction volume. Right now Bitcoin transaction volume is on average equal to approximately 1 tx/s. Let's say this gets to Visa/Mastercard levels (4000 tx/s). This means transaction fees could be reduced to 1/8 of their current cost (of course this analysis is not including additional costs to the servers for handling this scale, but let's consider that negligible to the cost of POW). But now do you really think it is realistic to keep the security of a potentially multiple trillion dollar network secured by only $500 million per year. If we wanted the security of Bitcoin to scale with its market cap (with the proportionality constant it has today), then at coinbase saturation and Visa/Mastercard levels of transaction volume, the Bitcoin network could only support a $40 billion market cap without needing to increase transaction fees. If it needed to get to a trillion dollar market cap with this level of security, the transaction fees would have to increase by more than an order of magnitude.
But again, maybe you think $4 billion per year of security is good enough for even a trillion dollar network. Fine, then you are correct, transaction fees don't need to increase. But so what. Why settle for mediocrity when they can get lower transaction fees with higher effective security by using DPOS. People will eventually stop being blinded by the Bitcoin delusion and realize this. I generally think people are irrational, but I don't think they are that irrational.
Network effect is huge with currencies, I won't deny that. But look at the network effect of the US dollar. And yet, Bitcoin has the audacity to challenge that network effect. But you are saying it is unrealistic to expect BitShares to take on Bitcoin?
My understanding of your position is that you believe in the technology of BitShares but are constantly questioning yourself regarding whether BTSX could succeed over BTC.
Seriously do you know that the US debt is $17 trillion and adding the health insurance, pensions etc it goes to +$65 trillions.. How much more debt do you think the US will be able to issue until someone (mostly Chinese) require repayment of this debt? Greece defaulted on its debt for +300 billions. Sure % wise it is higher than it's GDP but still... we are talking about trillions in the US...Just to show you a small idea about debt worldwide.. http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clockNobody talks about these things... Greece is the bad guy since we owe more than our GDP but no one is going to question the US...yet...! I think that in a couple of years people will realise the illusion of holding Gold bars, US $, paper currencies, worthless stocks and will realise that cryptos can be more valuable in exchanging them for olive oil, food, clothes etc..I am very pessimistic about the future. IMHO we will experience a much much bigger crisis worldwide soon that is imaginable yet..
ut that doesn't change the fact that to me, eventhough there are people commenting on how fast crypto is moving, I'm worried that we will not make it in time.
Perhaps you can build a delay tolerant mesh network for the "Internet of Things" with this DAC?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWtRTzXJvtIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RusR2PiqPshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networkingLet's put CubeSats in space and use delay tolerant networking.
Quote from: mf-tzo on October 02, 2014, 08:52:13 amand to add some more sauce to the above...wait until the Chinese government start claiming repayment of the US debt to see what will happen...*autsch* .. do you have any 'hard facts' on this? are they talking about this already?
and to add some more sauce to the above...wait until the Chinese government start claiming repayment of the US debt to see what will happen...
I'm not sure what this interesting discussion has to do with the OP, but I'll resurrect my 0.02 bitUSD here to enrich the volatile fuel-air mix:http://bitshares.org/stans-thoughts-on-dpos-and-bitcoin/
Look. I currently own a greater percentage of total BTSX supply than total BTC supply, so I'd be happy for BTSX to win. (Not only for my financial position but because I believe it is a better system.) I just don't think the arguments put forth for why it WILL win are very convincing.
Yes I'm in favor of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin drastically improves over legacy financial systems in transaction time, processing fees, fraud protection, freedom etc. Those are differences that people will notice. Bitshares makes modest improvements over Bitcoin in some areas, which people won't really notice. (Really low fees vs. even lower fees. Really fast transactions vs even faster transactions. If you can accept Bitcoin transactions within a few seconds, as other have argued correctly in this thread, what difference does it ultimately make that confirmations are 10 minutes vs 10 seconds. To the user: none.)
No you are wrong. Your first point says transaction fees will be lower for BTSX than for BTC. I know that. But BTC transaction fees can still fall with adoption as the price of security is spread out among more people.
Facebook is a good example. Google, one of the biggest companies in the world, made it their mission to unseat Facebook. Fail. Because of mindshare and network effects. A social network is only as useful as the number of your friends using it. Same with a currency. A currency is only as useful as the number of people you need to pay and receive payment from who use it. Bitcoin has a huge advantage.Look. I currently own a greater percentage of total BTSX supply than total BTC supply, so I'd be happy for BTSX to win. (Not only for my financial position but because I believe it is a better system.) I just don't think the arguments put forth for why it WILL win are very convincing.
Didn't expect to have this discussion on the bitsharestalk forum, but okay...Quote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 10:02:04 pmThat buys *a lot* more security than is needed. The reality is block rewards are more a way to distribute coins at this point. As block reward continues to halve it won't cause a huge problem for security.The security per unit cost ratio of DPOS will always be better than POW because it is inherent in the consensus technology. Take whatever is the desirable level of security for both DACs, and it will be cheaper to provide that security on the DPOS DAC than the POW DAC (assuming irrational price speculation comes back to reality, or at least that the price speculation is equal on both DACs). In other words, during the saturation stage when adoption has saturated and there is no more inflation, the transaction fees in a POW DAC will necessarily be much higher than the transaction fees in a DPOS DAC (to provide the same level of security).
That buys *a lot* more security than is needed. The reality is block rewards are more a way to distribute coins at this point. As block reward continues to halve it won't cause a huge problem for security.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 10:02:04 pmQuote from: oco101 on October 01, 2014, 08:57:06 pmNo price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized company Circus or Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ? )No they don't, and they're right not to. For most people their money is more secure with Circle or Coinbase then it would be if they tried to keep it in cold storage but messed something up. People trust regulated, insured, american companies with good brand recognition, and lots of VC backing, and financial executives on their boards. You and much of the libertarian cryptocurrency crowd doesn't, but most people do.Wait, are you even in favor of cryptocurrency at all? Yes of course most people on this planet don't care about cryptocurrency at the moment. That will eventually change. And when it does people will want important features like price stability, fast transaction confirmations, and less centralization (all of which BitShares provides over Bitcoin). In fact, I would argue that they won't ever be interested in cryptocurrency if it didn't have those features (well at least the first two).
Quote from: oco101 on October 01, 2014, 08:57:06 pmNo price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized company Circus or Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ? )No they don't, and they're right not to. For most people their money is more secure with Circle or Coinbase then it would be if they tried to keep it in cold storage but messed something up. People trust regulated, insured, american companies with good brand recognition, and lots of VC backing, and financial executives on their boards. You and much of the libertarian cryptocurrency crowd doesn't, but most people do.
No price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized company Circus or Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ? )
Quote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 10:02:04 pmQuote from: oco101 on October 01, 2014, 08:57:06 pmFees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin opposite.No, you are absolutely wrong about this. See my first point.
Quote from: oco101 on October 01, 2014, 08:57:06 pmFees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin opposite.
Fees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin
Quote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 10:02:04 pmIt's got a much much bigger problem. Nobody has ever hear of it (apart from hardcore cryptonerds). And nobody cares that it is better in a whole bunch of ways that don't matter at all to the user.And there was a time when nobody ever heard of Bitcoin, or Facebook, or Google, or ... on and on and on.
It's got a much much bigger problem. Nobody has ever hear of it (apart from hardcore cryptonerds). And nobody cares that it is better in a whole bunch of ways that don't matter at all to the user.
Bitcoin security cost about 600 millions dollar a year, that's one of the reason bitcoin price is going down.
51 attack it is a very real possibility
Discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40%-60% and it getting worst (p2pool will never be competitive with ghash.io)
BitshareX has none of those problem.
Quote from: JoeyD on October 01, 2014, 06:58:25 pmQuote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 06:31:18 pmI agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it? And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...Now you've lost me, which users are you talking about now? Because first you say the average user doesn't give a hoot about what bitcoin actually is or how it works, nor do they care about any other coin and what they might become, and then suddenly you say they do care.Huh? My point is that the users only care about what they can do with the currency. They don't care how it works, whether it is more decentralized, whether it is theoretically more secure, etc. Can they buy beer with it? Can they buy peg it to USD? Can they use it to buy mesh internet connectivity? Those are things the user cares about. The user does not care if the block chain uses proof of work or delegates, if confirmation times are 10 seconds or 10 minutes (if you are right that confirmation times can pretty much be ignored), if purchase of assets such as USD are decentralized like BitUSD or centralized like Circle's upcoming pegged USD balances.When you look at BTSX advantages, it's all stuff that the user doesn't care about.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 06:31:18 pmI agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it? And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...Now you've lost me, which users are you talking about now? Because first you say the average user doesn't give a hoot about what bitcoin actually is or how it works, nor do they care about any other coin and what they might become, and then suddenly you say they do care.
I agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it? And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...
How you see the chances of survival is of course up to you, but neither bitcoin nor bitshares will be running their entire blockchain over a mesh network any time soon, because that is just doing it wrong.
The thing with bitcoin is, that it is not quick to change and will not adapt as fast as the smaller more agile altcoins. And the slogan that bitcoin can just take anything from any alt and implement it, I'm afraid is a load of bovarian excrement.
Oh, even though I'm late to respond, no you actually don't need to wait for the first confirmation in bitcoin. As I said you only need to know if the payment is possible. Verifying the balance doesn't take 10 minutes, and you can see all transactions waiting in line even without them being in a block and you can actually see how far the transaction has spread through the network and even deduce the likelihood of it being processed in the next block.
Coming back to the trusted node system for the mesh payment network, would it not be feasible to convince shops in crowded areas to be seed nodes if they can get paid for sharing their bandwidth to the mesh network and at the same time be sure they have a very reliable link to the payment network. Use greed and fear at the same time, that's a tried and true tactic which has worked wonders since time in memoriam.
agreed ... still afaik you can also share you wifi connection via opengarden .. I need to check out these apps ASAP
Quote from: xeroc on October 01, 2014, 03:44:01 pmwe can start building that kind of mesh network with mobile phones first:https://opengarden.com/apps"earn bitUSD by providing network to people nearby"!Exactly! If you could earn money by running opengarden it might really take off. People would start running it everywhere (it's available for Mac and Windows) and feel gratified every time they saw their earnings tick up.But realistically most people won't want to share their cellular data connections because cellular data is so expensive/scarce. But broadband data is not. So I think the place to start is giving people a way to share their broadband connections via mesh and earn money for it. The phone apps will probably mostly be used to get data from the broadband connections rather than to share the cellular connections.
we can start building that kind of mesh network with mobile phones first:https://opengarden.com/apps"earn bitUSD by providing network to people nearby"!
Quote from: OldMan on October 01, 2014, 02:53:03 amSo all we need is BM to combine BTSX, Storj, Maidsafe and Firechat into a global meshnet protocol that can connect any Bluetooth/WiFi device. Throw in DAC to operate/maintain a bunch of those Facebook sub-orbital drones and/or microsats for continental inter-connectivity.I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?Ha! It actually may be quite a bit simpler than that. There are opensource wifi meshnet implementations for sharing internet connections already and there are opensource router firmware packages for customizing popular routers already. So here are some straightforward steps to get the project going:1) Integrate BTSX payments into existing opensource implementation of internet sharing wifi meshnet (this is the hardest step as it requires considerable thought and experimentation regarding network performance and incentives)2) Integrate that implementation of meshnet+BTSX into existing opensource implementation of router firmware3) Sell router as one step plug and play package for connecting to the meshnet, advertise, form business partnerships, etc (can probably get this kickstarted or VC funded)extra credit:4) Port the opensource wifi meshnet from step 1 to smartphone apps so you can also connect to the meshnet from Android and iOS (PCs are already supported by opensource meshnet implementations).For step 3 I image that you might pick one tech literate city and advertise the hell out of it to get a critical mass going. Once it's up and working in one big city it will spread like wildfire to the rest of the world.Bitcoin is still looking for its "killer app" to propel it into the mainstream.If ever there was a killer app for BTSX, this could be it. It could take BTSX to full blown mainstream adoption in a matter of a few years. With *transactional* demand driving the price of BTSX (instead of speculation which currently drives the volume of all cryptocoins) it would have unparalleled investment legitimacy, and that could lead to very rapid adoption throughout the world economy.
So all we need is BM to combine BTSX, Storj, Maidsafe and Firechat into a global meshnet protocol that can connect any Bluetooth/WiFi device. Throw in DAC to operate/maintain a bunch of those Facebook sub-orbital drones and/or microsats for continental inter-connectivity.I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?
Quote from: OldMan on October 01, 2014, 02:53:03 amI mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?The same thing he does every day, Pinky, try to reengineer the world!
I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?
Maybe someone with more experience in this field can comment, but if you want to replace the last-mile connectivity, I don't think it is going to just be 10 additional hops. I doubt the latency would every be low enough for gaming, voip, and video chat. And the latency might be high enough that browsing the web recreationally would suck so much that you rather not bother.
Quote from: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 01:17:22 amIt's not settled that legal liability would attach. There have been some cases about people not securing their wifi connection in their homes, and outsiders using their wifi for evil purposes, and I don't think anyone has gotten in serious trouble for not securing their wifi. It won't be target by government unless it is fairly popular, and once it is, there may be little they can do. Your example of tor for instance is apt. Tor is still going.I am just saying this legal uncertainty can kill adoption.
It's not settled that legal liability would attach. There have been some cases about people not securing their wifi connection in their homes, and outsiders using their wifi for evil purposes, and I don't think anyone has gotten in serious trouble for not securing their wifi. It won't be target by government unless it is fairly popular, and once it is, there may be little they can do. Your example of tor for instance is apt. Tor is still going.
Why would it be horrible? Your IP packets already take a bunch of jumps to get to you. Adding another 5-10 jumps shouldn't be a huge issue, should it?
Isn't the latency going to be horrible? Perhaps it would only be useful for asynchronous messaging and batch downloads, which I admit is still incredibly useful.
My biggest concern is liability. Are the end-point nodes going to have to deal with harassment by the government because some anonymous person used their internet connection to do illegal things. Take a look at the lack of Tor exit nodes. Sure, you can be financially compensated for your bandwidth, but that's not going to be enough to cover legal fees trying to prove to the government you weren't the one that initiated those "bad" packets.
Yeah I'd love to see distributed internet and maybe some people here can figure out a model that could align the incentives just right to make it feasible. But you'll be up against some big aggressive players.I was following the OLPC-project very closely and liked their solution, unfortunately, because that project did not run a certain operating system and did not need a certain manufacturers expensive cpu, a lot of time and effort went into diversion tactics in the shape of netbooks and forcing said bloated os on a system it was not suited for. The meshnetworking or any other concepts were not integrated into the netbooks and the bloated os helped kill the project. The diversion was a succes and besides making some ripples in the industry, real disruption had been halted. But who cares, why would anyone want a screen you could use in direct sunlight anyways?Anyways I'm a big fan of the concept of mesh-networks and I've been trying to think up ways and combinations with cryptocurrencies that would make it feasible. This looked promising but I have not seen an update or sign of life from them for close to a year now. My current line of thought is that there might be a way to get several services to essentially piggy back ride on each other and with their combined utility value be able to foster and sustain a mesh network.As for blocktimes, I agree with bytemaster that that is not a concern at all. You only need to transmit a valid signed message, the message itself does not to be confirmed several blocks deep. Even with bitcoin that is actually not a requirement. If you can do a quick check if the paying account has the funds and if you can be certain that enough nodes have seen the payment, then why would you need to wait for the transaction to be confirmed several blocks deep?
Quote from: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 09:24:41 pmHmmm... I remember that proposal for bitcoin a while back. Serious impediment if you have to wait 10 minutes for the bond to confirm, but if it's only 10 seconds that is not as big a deal.But, imagine that you had to wait 10 seconds every time you wanted to make a phone call from a new location... even to connect your laptop to wifi, a 10 second delay would be pretty annoying.Anyway, I think it's possible to get the delay down to a few seconds, which is just on the edge of a delay that won't seriously turn people off.Much like in bitcoin, the network sees unconfirmed transactions, can let you in directly and cut the connection after 30 secs if the transactions does not get included into a block by delegates
Hmmm... I remember that proposal for bitcoin a while back. Serious impediment if you have to wait 10 minutes for the bond to confirm, but if it's only 10 seconds that is not as big a deal.But, imagine that you had to wait 10 seconds every time you wanted to make a phone call from a new location... even to connect your laptop to wifi, a 10 second delay would be pretty annoying.Anyway, I think it's possible to get the delay down to a few seconds, which is just on the edge of a delay that won't seriously turn people off.
Isnt another big problem with incentivizing mesh networks and internet sharing is that users at the end of the mesh chain dont have any BitUSD/crypto to send to the other nodes?
Even if it is necessary to pay per byte, a payment channel will be the most efficient way to handle microtransactions between meshnet nodes. So it could even be implemented with BTC's slow transaction times.I don't think it will ever be possible to have "true" microtransactions (i.e. arbitrarily small stand alone payments) in a decentralized fashion in any cryptocurrency, because there will always be a flat price for distributing information to a network.
Identity is easily managed by having a bond posted in the blockchain that is forfeit if the node doesn't make good. The two parties can then exchange receipts as quickly as they like and then claim it at the end of the day. There is a point where it is cheaper to extend a free sample than attempt to collect payment for it.
This wouldn't be a DAC... it would be a standardized protocol that utilizes BTSX. The routers would be "vending machines" not part of a DAC.
There is no need to have transactions confirmed that quickly... peers would extend credit to each other and settle daily. A node that doesn't settle will be cut off. In a mesh network each node will have at most 18 peers (neighbors left, right, front back, top, bottom, and diagonals) "in range"... if one of them doesn't pay then they are cut off.Most payments could be made with "bandwidth bartering" and only the long-term trade surplus would need to be settled in crypto.