Blinded token "cash" might be better than coloured coins because people keep seeming to imagine that coloured coins, being distributed / p2p, are somehow "secure" in some sense that Chaumian blinded token "cash" is not.
I think that is dangerous and misleading, and pretending that that does not matter "because buyer beware" or "because RTFM" maybe does to quite "cut it" when grandma gets bilked out of her retirement savings due to somehow failing to have it sufficiently strongly drummed into her that the things have no value other than any value the issuer might honour, regardless of how many distributed p2p people go on and on about how important it is and how wonderful it is that "the issuer is not required in order to trade this asset".
With Open Transactions based "cash" tokens it hopefully is very very clear how totally dependent it is upon the issuer. Especially if the issuer is the server that must be used to deal with the tokens. Even just having some other issuer's tokens be used on a server could be dangerously confusing, because when one thinks of a term for what the server is doing when it gives out cash tokens a word that English speakers seem likely to have come to mind is that the server issues the cash tokens. Which is correct English but that kind of handing out of the cash is utterly different from "issuing" the Open Transactions assets themselves that the cash represents, which in turn only represents some real asset such as grams of gold or shares of a company etc.
So for total clarity it might be better, even if third party running an Open Transactions server/service that some company's shares will be traded on and/or handed out as cash tokens by, to set up a distinct server per such company, making it clear the server is that company's server so it is always totally clear that the assets tokens cash etc all totally depend upon that company not upon the hosting service or software as a service company that sys-admins the server/service.
-MarkM-
Well, my big question really is, which parts of OT can be used that will be synergistic with iXcoin?
So right now, I am thinking, one would create new financial instruments using OT, this would be defined in Ricardian contract like fashion. The actual instrument is allocated into IXC. In short, issuance of currency is not free, one has to provide an allocation of IXC that gets converted to the new currency. OT scripting functionality would then be used to enforce the agreement of the IXC currency.
The question though from the IXC p2p peer network is this. How does the network know of the details of the currency? How does the enforcement of the contracts work in a distributed fashion? In other words, there is some registry out there (hopefully not centralized), that the IXC network is aware of and employs to enforce contracts of all its minted currencies. Can the contract information be embedded in the genesis transaction? Are contract executions confined to the server that issued the contract or is it transferrable?
Yes, you are entirely correct that there needs to be some linkage back from the issuer and the actual server that would deliver the contract. Unless what needs to be delivered by the issuer is a commodity. The function therefore of iXcoin based currency is to make transparent to both buyer and seller the total number of units that are available. The issue with a OT server only issuance is that one cannot discover the quantity that is actually issued. There is an element of trust that the issuer has actual created only what he can actually deliver (kind of like a fiat currency). In an IXC denominated currency, the amounts that have been issued are known in the ledger.