1006
General Discussion / Re: BlockChain + DHT
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:51:02 pm »
Then we could have a tool in the BitShares toolkit "download-DAC <name>"
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1007
General Discussion / Re: BlockChain + DHT
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:49:57 pm »
Optionally of course
1008
General Discussion / Re: BlockChain + DHT
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:48:58 pm »
Ah yeah... Well, once you have the DNS up and running it could also store references to gitchain, right?
1009
General Discussion / Re: Upcoming Crowdsales on Mastercoin
« on: June 12, 2014, 11:28:52 am »We don't even have a product yet. PTS is badly broken and it takes forever to clear transactions. And it's STILL #12. Just think what PTS (or its successor) will be worth in a few months, not to mention all the other DAC currencies.+PTS will be fixed with DPOS (snapshot not announced yet)
+PTS is and will be only liquid way to join future dacs
+once AGS is finished (in a little more than 30 days) PTS will be THE ONLY way to get a stake in ALL future snapshots!
+PTS are cheap atm
I have to slightly disagree here. PTS/AGS is only guaranteed to take 20% of future snapshots (and that is if they honor the social contract). The other 80% could easily be funded on their own.
And they most likely will. Of course your point might still be valid that after the AGS funding period is over, PTS will be worth a hell of a lot more.
1010
General Discussion / BlockChain + DHT
« on: June 12, 2014, 03:11:25 am »
Not sure if I was considered one of the "ramblers" in the DACs v.s. Firms discussion. I'm passionate about the idea of using a thin BlockChain + DHT to store the data.
It will be interesting to see how well this project here solves it:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain
It is very similar to my concept (and it's nothing new, technically GIT already is a blockchain since it uses hashes for all the commits).
Once there is a decentralized GIT hosting, there could be many interesting solutions. For example the source code for a DAC could live on the chain itself!!! So even if GitHub gets shutdown, or a project gets booted off GitHub, it will continue to live in the cloud.
It will be interesting to see how well this project here solves it:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain
It is very similar to my concept (and it's nothing new, technically GIT already is a blockchain since it uses hashes for all the commits).
Once there is a decentralized GIT hosting, there could be many interesting solutions. For example the source code for a DAC could live on the chain itself!!! So even if GitHub gets shutdown, or a project gets booted off GitHub, it will continue to live in the cloud.
1011
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 11, 2014, 01:51:49 pm »Why do you need to see all the transactions? In fact that's why it's the perfect solution - it solves privacy concerns as well. So long as you have proof that you own your amounts, why do you care to see other transactions?
Transparency is the only way to defend against corruption and fraud in the real world. So while you do want privacy it's also important to be able to follow the money. The same technology which facilitates secret transactions will be used later to preserve the status quo of centralization and corruption.
In the crypto community this doesn't seem to matter as much because you can decentralize a lot of things but outside of the crypto community where people aren't so quick to adopt decentralized solutions what then? What do you think the result will be for juries who can now all be bribed secretly along with judges?
How would you have a system of justice? People who don't have any money will not have any justice and people with a lot of money will be able to be above the law. So for that reason a strong case can be made for a paper trail. The only problem with Bitcoin is that everyone could see every transaction all the time but if you can obfuscate it yet maintain a paper trail there are benefits to that which you're not realizing.
So I can conclude that used inappropriately Bitcoin isn't private enough. I can also say that it is possible to have something so private that using it at all makes you corrupt in the eyes of the media, the judge, the jury, and others. Too private and it becomes a mafia or black market currency.
My solution is to not have a block chain but a DHT. Basically something like MaidSafe. However it is more of a hybrid. A very thin block chain + bigger data in a sparse DHT. The problem is that in order to ensure the data is stored it needs to be incentivized. So the solution is to either store transaction details yourself or have transaction fees pay for the storage of the data. A bit like Vitalik's idea to have a "block chain that charges rent". We are already considering things like that for DPOS here.
So the bottom line is information is not hidden it just costs money to obtain it. So if there is something that needs investigation money can be spent to look into it. But it is cost prohibitive to automatically watch and spy on everyone. I think this is far better than having a completely public ledger. There is the other side to the coin too - people are not happy about every single move they make being recorded and over analyzed. Also I'm pretty sure most people prefer privacy over full blown spying.
Trust me automatic full transparency will make stalking a problem and prevent mass adoption. People know that all their credit card transactions are recorded. But if EVERYONE can see your transactions that's going to be hard to swallow.
I gave you the example with a stalker sitting in a coffee shop, waiting for you to pay to see where you spend the rest of your money.
1012
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:29:56 pm »
Couldn't agree more one the one chain (or alternatives to chain) solution that can represent all assets. This is at the core of my platform's design. It is not an easy thing to solve. I mean elegantly.
1013
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:02:51 pm »
So will future DACs be built on top of BTS, or will they each have to build their own network from scratch? I'm not in favor of gazillions different pieces of software that need installing and updating. Of course there might some pros in DACs having completely independent chains I'm not seeing. Diversity would be one, staying away from a mono culture.
Anyways. Fun times. I hope this DPOS thing is put to bed soon so I can start trading BitUsd
Anyways. Fun times. I hope this DPOS thing is put to bed soon so I can start trading BitUsd
1014
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 07:56:57 pm »
All the nice features like stalking and spying?
I try to think what would the world look if we use only a digital currency. Well we would need to be able to process 2000 transactions per second. Bitcoin is nowhere near that. Then we would not want stalkers to be able to identify us. Say I bought a coffee, you sit in the coffee shop and observe, now you know where my money came from you can track me and my spending habits, that's not good.
You can still examine your transactions but they are private between you and the other parties involved.
As a person willing to put significant capital into a digital currency, I'd rather have a ledger of the process. A cloud holding balances where things break with no record to audit doesn't seem like an improvement. I agree privacy is a good thing, but you can fix that in other ways and maintain the blockchain.
I think adoption is hindered more by lack of trust than a fear of privacy.
Adoption is also hindered by lack of good idiot proof tools. But thy is changing.
As far as the ledger goes you can keep it in your wallet, doesn't have to be on the cloud. So long as the used public keys are marked in a chain to prevent double spending.
In fact I wasn't trying to solve privacy concerns but rather reduce the block chain it is 17GB for just 40M transactions. It's laughable. You will eventually have people run thin clients and trust the centralized servers willing to hold all the data that it is correct. Which at some point might not be. Of course it's not easy to fake blocks. But it's not impossible either. So unless you are able to check the entire block chain in Bitcoin you can't really know for sure.
1015
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 07:50:22 pm »
Stan you continuously fail to see my point. What I'm proposing is not ONE organization ran by committee, but rather a PLATFORM in which MANY independent projects and organizations can be funded via the SAME currency. In other words you would still run your project however you would not be funded in BTC or PTS but rather in say BTS and you will be hugely incentivized to create value for BTS because if you don't you won't get paid.
The second point I was making was on how I would reduce risk for investors by only gathering a "pledge" 5% amount, which is like an option to buy the full when/if I feel confident in the product near it's release.
Again this is a brainstorm at this point. But please get it through your head that what I'm proposing is not a design by committee but rather a competitive environment where next to Invictus others could compete for the donated funds in a fair market. That said nothing is stopping people from competing since you are not even using your own currency for the donation.
Ok. Beaten it to death. I had different expectations. No need to justify what you do. You explained your plan and are sticking to it.
Also let me remind you that had I not started the whole argument about how one trustee is a horrible idea and proposed deposit paid positions were you even going to pursue DPOS? My point is I have my fair share of constructive criticism. Just some of my ideas are not doable within your structure. Doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it
The second point I was making was on how I would reduce risk for investors by only gathering a "pledge" 5% amount, which is like an option to buy the full when/if I feel confident in the product near it's release.
Again this is a brainstorm at this point. But please get it through your head that what I'm proposing is not a design by committee but rather a competitive environment where next to Invictus others could compete for the donated funds in a fair market. That said nothing is stopping people from competing since you are not even using your own currency for the donation.
Ok. Beaten it to death. I had different expectations. No need to justify what you do. You explained your plan and are sticking to it.
Also let me remind you that had I not started the whole argument about how one trustee is a horrible idea and proposed deposit paid positions were you even going to pursue DPOS? My point is I have my fair share of constructive criticism. Just some of my ideas are not doable within your structure. Doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it
1016
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 05:02:29 pm »What I'm looking at in my design is to make the block chain obsolete. Once you do that, you can have millions of derivative coins all using the same infrastructure. Another thing I thought bitshares was going to implement but I see how that would've slowed them down.
Getting the network effect for each DAC is just too painful and could jeopardize a good DAC
So if blockchain is obsolete what about all the auditing features we are given with a blockchain? Sure you could get rid of it, but you also will lose faith in the technology.
All the nice features like stalking and spying?
I try to think what would the world look if we use only a digital currency. Well we would need to be able to process 2000 transactions per second. Bitcoin is nowhere near that. Then we would not want stalkers to be able to identify us. Say I bought a coffee, you sit in the coffee shop and observe, now you know where my money came from you can track me and my spending habits, that's not good.
You can still examine your transactions but they are private between you and the other parties involved.
1017
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 04:28:36 pm »
What I'm looking at in my design is to make the block chain obsolete. Once you do that, you can have millions of derivative coins all using the same infrastructure. Another thing I thought bitshares was going to implement but I see how that would've slowed them down.
Getting the network effect for each DAC is just too painful and could jeopardize a good DAC
Getting the network effect for each DAC is just too painful and could jeopardize a good DAC
1018
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 04:24:27 pm »
Difference between GPU resistant and QR is night and day. One aims at decentralizing mining power, which is not necessarily that scary, the other aims at making sure your coins are safe!!!
1019
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 04:09:35 pm »I'm curious about your quantum computing resistant coin. Any details on how you achieved it ?One can make use of so call Lamport Signatures which are quantum proof but large!
What I did and seems to work is very similar to Lamport Signatures except for it's freaking small!!!
1020
General Discussion / Re: DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)
« on: June 10, 2014, 04:06:49 pm »To me it seems like you are contradicting yourself because you say "DACs are useless" and then describe how and when DACs are not useless. I think you think that we think of DACs as "normal company + blockchain". Reading from the past (now that I read it I realize I excluded the most important part of all three examples there which is *corruption* of the centralized entity): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3488.msg43785#msg43785
> The prediction market concept is flexible enough to contain functions for gambling, insurance, and portfolio replication (currency exchange), as well as other functions.
Right, and if I can have lower fees than Truthcoin for my currency exchange by having a special-purpose blockchain (delegates would have lower bandwidth/storage requirements), shouldn't I make my own blockchain and out-compete truthcoin on that one particular area?
Must have not expressed myself clearly. I'm saying DACs are hard. But they are my preference.
I was in a way delusional, what I expected from bitshares was a platform in which anyone can make a proposal and others can fund if they like it. More like kickstarter. In other words I expected that Invictus will NOT control the funds. Instead they will make proposals like everyone else and compete for the funding. I was wrong, my bad. So that's why I started looking into creating such a platform as a thought experiment at first.
As far as quantum computing resistant goes, Bitcoin already is IF and it's a big if, if you don't reuse the same address. That said AGS is like the worst with respect to being quantum resistant. But any time I raise the question of making AGS liquid I get dirty looks. Fine. Let's have our funds locked because you see according to Stan - that's the investor crowd that will never sell.
If I said DACs are useless I was being sarcastic, I'll have to go back and see what I wrote. Been a long night
