Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 53. (Read 810096 times)

A_russo made us a new website with all stuff:

http://spreadcoin.us/

nice ... ill have a look when i get back into the office tomorrow ...

tanx graham ...

#crysx

tanx mate ...

have tried a while back but that source doesnt seem to compile for some reason ...

looked at others and tried those - which is why i stick with sp ccminer version ... i need the sgminer version that actually compiles and works ...

apart from that - that is the git for the miner - not the wallet ...

#crysx

I think the OP was referring to the web site code but anyway ... that's Mr Spread's abandoned repos.

I created a github org https://github.com/spreadcoin, migrated all the code there and bestowed admin privs on the listed contributors, i.e. it's in common ownership atm.

I've been wrapping up a few loose ends from before the phase 2 test, merging a few branches before conducting a comprehensive relabelling exercise. If you collectively wish to debate and decide upon different labels then so be it, the important point is that the labels have been changed:

• Masternode -> Service node
• InstantTx -> ExpressTx
• DarkSend -> PrivSend

This activity is taking place in the sn-test branch which is being positioned as a candidate for the next round of testing.

Cheers

Graham

The old website is dead.
A new one is being created right now. (might take a few more days)

I have recompiled and built the windows qt-wallet (32-bit) + daemon,
you can download it here:

http://www.spreadcointalk.org/SpreadCoin32.7z

Stay tuned for new website.  

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin ?

it doesnt work ...

ive been trying to get my hands on the source for a while - but no one seems to have a copy ...

#crysx

The download links for website and wallet does not appear to be working?

Or is it a problem with my web browser?

Can someone else check.

There are different variations to the "escrow" concept... trick is to do it all in one environment... happy programming

1) Blockchain proof of copyright: http://www.proofofexistence.com/

2) Blockchain notary: https://github.com/bitcoinaustria/bitnotar#readme

3) Proof of ownership: http://www.monegraph.com/

4) Dispute resolution: http://www.precedent.io/

5) Blockchain governance: http://www.bitcongress.org/

This useless person inside this MasterCard suit was actually very useful to identifying the top level selling message that credit card firms are having to evolve in order to compete with crypto.

https://youtu.be/bO4jHXjCXw8?t=1m12s

He just gave out a great way that Spread escrow and crypto can compete with them - see, a useful tool

I suppose you could use the escrow concept for loan collateral.

I'm thinking about debentures or mortgages charges, at the moment.

But it could be extended to other loans types, such as p2p loans or even rent guarantees where a third party could provide collateral security to the lender.

That could be extended to things like rent deposit schemes.

ServiceNodes are an endless pit of opportunities on a vertical and horizontal level.

edit

I think Bitcredit is doing something alone these lines. Not sure to what extent. Nevertheless, its an interesting area.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcredit-migrating-to-uniqredit-896133

Taking money from lawyers is one of the noblest pursuits a sentient can aspire to.

We create the market, we can create the revenue model. A network that automates the escrow service removes the human overhead cost, meaning even micro transactions can be very profitable:

Random ideas / options:

* What if banks, financial institutions and every business using the service paid a monthly subscription service, plus a nominal fee for every transaction?

* What if the escrow model could be used to efficiently link with social media - escrow linked to Facebook, twitter, etc? Millions of small transactions still equals tons of money.

* What if you could link this to charity sponsorship - If you complete your objective, the funds can be released?

* What if you could link the service to monthly salary payments? You can work on contract safe in the knowledge that the funds are there and would be released to you if you do your part.

* There is one other revenue option which I'm keeping back until I research it.

I don't think the network has to worry about disputes. The network can use a trust rating system for arbitrators. Any disputes automatically come off the network and the multi-sig key held by the network goes to a real person to deal with the issue. Arbitrators could be lawyers who pay a monthly fee to get referrals.

Me neither but I think the revenue stream may turn out to be much more modest than is currently fancied because the core service is basically a commodity and the main revenue will orient around the arbitration service.

Props for finding that JPM doc, immensely valuable for the insights it brings:

• 63% of buyers were private companies <- API needs to aim wider than just banks
• 13% of all transactions were cross-border <- does that represent an opportunity?
• 76% of escrow agreements specify a termination date, 18 months is the most prevalent <- service must be an emergent property
• 79% of escrow agreements have an explicit clause dedicated to the claims process <- Beware, here be monsters
• Over 70% of cash deposits were invested in Interest-Bearing Accounts <- PoS implementation required?
• 30% of all terminated deals had at least one claim, most commonly for purchase price / working capital adjustments <- so, might be do-able

My disciplinary interests start to kick in when I consider the representation of the semantics of an arbitrary "explicit clause dedicated to the claims process" because it's an unsolved problem. Where semantics are concerned, there's still a ways to go:



However, I'm hopeful that something can be done, albeit with a deeply impoverished service.

fwiw, I have been able to make some progress in the domain of transparency data published by the UK Parliament and marked up with HTML.

If that sparks an interest, there are a couple of related impress.js slide presentations in the list of owl-o-parl tours.

The first is for general context of the effort.

The second attempts an accessible description of how the site applies semantic web technology to turn a wall of text into separate facts (well, that's the intention, I'm still polishing the content).

If a similar technique can successfully be applied to 80% of escrow agreements (and JPM's reference to template agreements suggests that there's some mileage there at least), then we're in with a fighting chance of making it computationally tractable, hands-off and trustless.
 

Cheers

Graham

....and in the UK escrow providers need to be registered with the FCA.

I don't think its a deal breaker.

The technology is not tied to the legal process.  That's what made me think about an API for banks, or any party that holds funds for customers / clients and needs to bolt on an escrow service.

Banks, for example, are already regulated and they have already done their KYC due diligence.  Arguably, the servicenodes, under any model, never actually take control of funds; so are they technically escrow under the terms of the existing legal rules? The service they provide has the same outcome, but the approach is substantially different.

Also, I have been thinking of a model which would push the legal issues away from the network, so the network would be just providing the technology.

I'll send a PM around once I have done some work on the model.

edit

I don't think this is 100% comparable, but the witnesses to a contract do not need to be regulated to sign their name on a formal contract. They are just there to say 'I have seen these two parties sign the contract'.

That's sort of what servicenodes with multi-sig are doing. The ownership of the funds never leave the parties and servicenodes should never hold the funds - the additional benefit of this being fewer people trying to attack the network.

The servicenodes are there to ensure the parties complete the transfer of funds based on what they have previously agreed to, provided there is no dispute. Once there is a dispute, the parties go to an arbitration service provider.

Unfortunately, it's not going to be quite so easy as that:


The service must be framed in a way that renders inapplicable the legal definition of escrow.


Cheers

Graham

For everyone who is selling:

Thank you.

 

I read through the JPMorgan stuff.  I couldn't believe what I was reading. It really is money for old rope: 'can you hold this money for me for a while and I'll pay you 0.2%'

I'm still researching, but it looks like the biggest issue with Escrow is trusting third parties. Quite a few set-up an escrow service, get the money and run. Because of the huge amount of fraud it has got to the point of becoming a regulated service in many places, unless you are regulated for other things.

Guess what, why trust anyone? Why not have a decentralised trustless system to prevent all manner of escrow fraud?

Niche or mass market commodity......a start down the road might help to clarify and then define the end point.

I tend to agree, there's no operational reason, per se. But that's just one element, there are other important aspects to be considered.

To get an idea of what kind of escrow services are currently provided and who might be expected to use them, see:

https://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/cib/escrow/overview


That's the fella, an API to cheap, commodity escrow. The concept is proven, the key issue now is whether to focus on the entire market spectrum or develop a tenable niche.

Cheers

Graham

Edit: expanded slightly

There should be no reason, that I can think of, why you can't introduce an API for banks to link to the SPR servicenode escrow service.

Two people can enter into an agreement for a transaction; they can use the servicenodes for the transaction where the servicenodes are simply an arms length multi-sig party, the person with the funds enters his banking details and the funds are locked in his bank account by the servicenodes.

In the event of a dispute, an arbitration service can be appointed and the servicenodes can sign the multi-sig keys to them.

I have left out some details, because this could form the basis of a patent - possibly not if the source should be open sourced