great project!
need you guys!
need you guys!
A great design is not only one person to complete, it need a lot of people to join in!
I was on my way to join!
Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 313. (Read 1276817 times)
April 11, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
A great design is not only one person to complete, it need a lot of people to join in!
I was on my way to join!
April 11, 2014, 01:13:45 AM
Validation of the protocol rules by miners, such that confirmations are a meaningful statement about the validity of transactions.
April 11, 2014, 01:02:09 AM
As I've stated multiple times in this thread, and to various counterparty and mastercoin people in person, there are significant advantages to doing asset issuance and distributed markets on a validated, merged-mined side chain.
What I extract from this statement are three properties: validation, merge-mining and using a side chain. Could you please outline what you are referring to by validation in this context? Thanks.
April 11, 2014, 12:17:45 AM
I tried to transfer xcp from blockchain address to counterwallet. I take private key from the blockchain BTC wallet under the option " Export unencrypted". When I imported the private key to counterwallet, it shows "Not a valid private key". Anyone know how to solve this problem? Many thank.
The same problem. I'm sure the key is correct, I already used it for importing funds.
Also I have another problem, there was no XCP, only BTC in the dropdown menu when importing worked.
And "View Prices" page is blank. I see "Loading" at the top for a moment, then it disapperars and the page remain blank with no info. I've got Firefox 28.0 / W7.
April 11, 2014, 12:13:04 AM
A new idea about assets.
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
FYI only
There is a basic listing of assets information available at http://blockscan.com/asset.aspx
As an asset owner you can also update the information on the asset page independently via message signing.
We actively use and link to our assets in blockscan. It's a great service and continues to provide us third party verification to our customers. Thank you mtbitcoin for the excellent work!
April 10, 2014, 11:27:14 PM
A new idea about assets.
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
FYI only
There is a basic listing of assets information available at http://blockscan.com/asset.aspx
As an asset owner you can also update the information on the asset page independently via message signing.
April 10, 2014, 11:17:56 PM
A new idea about assets.
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
This might be related
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,220.msg1820
April 10, 2014, 11:06:27 PM
Regarding innovation, monetary reward from speculative asset issuance is a failed model. Any innovation that occurs could be cloned on a side chain using bitcoins, freicoins, or some other already issued coin as the native currency. In a free market there is absolutely no reason to prefer the non-pegged alternative.
Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts with us Mark, especially on my last query. Knowing your position on these topics is very helpful. Your note above shares that you conclude the speculative asset issuance as a failed model and I'll need to think on that for a while.
Given your position, would it be absolutely wrong of me to ask you for your help to write a BIP pull request to increase the size of OP_RETURN from 40bytes to 80bytes? I am exploring the opportunity to write the BIP with help of some Counterparty community members. I would like to secure your feedback and support, but I'm not whether your position on speculative asset models would preclude your desire to be broached on the topic of how to write a successful BIP. I'm afraid you would have absolutely zero interest, but hope you'll be kind to let me know your thoughts.
Will you let me know?
BTT
April 10, 2014, 10:15:32 PM
A new idea about assets.
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
Who can build a website about credible assets information and ratings?
April 10, 2014, 08:44:46 PM
I tried to transfer xcp from blockchain address to counterwallet. I take private key from the blockchain BTC wallet under the option " Export unencrypted and and Bitcoin-Qt format". When I imported the private key to counterwallet, it shows "Not a valid private key". Anyone know how to solve this problem? Many thanks.
April 10, 2014, 07:14:43 PM
And then Freicoin eliminates the rent entirely. We have wandered very off topic however.
Nobody uses Freicoin though...
April 10, 2014, 07:13:27 PM
Here's an interesting article on side chains on coindesk: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-developers-bitcoin-side-chains/
April 10, 2014, 06:38:41 PM
And then Freicoin eliminates the rent entirely. We have wandered very off topic however.
April 10, 2014, 06:36:34 PM
No, that is not a universally held view. Innovation can bring productivity gains which bring profit for the innovators without necessitating any rent collection. Personally I'm am of the opinion that rents are evil, and I've pretty much dedicated all of my bitcoin efforts towards destroying rent seeking industries.
There are alternative models out there which work much better.
There are alternative models out there which work much better.
I do not want to be in any way offensive, but the model proposed by adam is artificially, by pegging, seperating the rent from the innovator. I think rent collection by protection is something evil.
April 10, 2014, 06:24:19 PM
No, that is not a universally held view. Innovation can bring productivity gains which bring profit for the innovators without necessitating any rent collection. Personally I'm am of the opinion that rents are evil, and I've pretty much dedicated all of my bitcoin efforts towards destroying rent seeking industries.
There are alternative models out there which work much better.
There are alternative models out there which work much better.
April 10, 2014, 06:18:08 PM
Quote
2-way pegging means that value may be transferred at a pegged (fixed) rate in either direction. The "2-way" is in contrast to one-way pegging, which is for example how Counterparty was issued. Unlike proof-of-burn, 2-way pegging involves sending coins to a special form of output which identifies the destination chain and recipient on the other side. At this stage it is similar to proof-of-burn: you have provably made the currency unspendable to you, and in doing so you gain the right to claim an equal number of coins at the destination side chain.
What's new is the return peg: to move those side chain coins back onto bitcoin, you perform the same operation again. First you send the side-chain coins to a special output naming the bitcoin chain and yourself as recipient. On the bitcoin side you take one of those previous burn-like outputs which sent coins into the side chain, and present your proof of having "burnt" sidecoins in order to claim an equal number of real bitcoins.
This special form output is a script which is able to understand an embedded proof-of-spend from another chain, which validates the accounting rules (you need to spend X bitcoins to claim X sidecoins, and vice versa), and which makes sure that claimed coins go to the indicated recipient.
This sortof-is and sortof-isn't fixed exchange rates. If you are coming from an economic background you know the problems of fixed exchange rates, but those problems don't really apply here. The problem with a fixed exchange rate over national currencies is that the two are not in fact equivalent -- you have two issuers that are separately backing each currency. In the case of 2-way pegging however, the two currencies are equivalent. You only ever get sidecoins by making bitcoins inaccessible, and vice versa. It isn't about fixing exchange rates between two currencies, rather it is about using the same exact currency on two different networks: sidecoins are bitcoins, and bitcoins are sidecoins.
thank you for explaining it like this, this is for me totally sound even though you can wonder from a non-technical perspective why you need this special tokens on sidechains, when they are equivalent to bitcoin, but I assume this is like for xcp a technical reason.
Regarding innovation, monetary reward from speculative asset issuance is a failed model. Any innovation that occurs could be cloned on a side chain using bitcoins, freicoins, or some other already issued coin as the native currency. In a free market there is absolutely no reason to prefer the non-pegged alternative.
What's new is the return peg: to move those side chain coins back onto bitcoin, you perform the same operation again. First you send the side-chain coins to a special output naming the bitcoin chain and yourself as recipient. On the bitcoin side you take one of those previous burn-like outputs which sent coins into the side chain, and present your proof of having "burnt" sidecoins in order to claim an equal number of real bitcoins.
This special form output is a script which is able to understand an embedded proof-of-spend from another chain, which validates the accounting rules (you need to spend X bitcoins to claim X sidecoins, and vice versa), and which makes sure that claimed coins go to the indicated recipient.
This sortof-is and sortof-isn't fixed exchange rates. If you are coming from an economic background you know the problems of fixed exchange rates, but those problems don't really apply here. The problem with a fixed exchange rate over national currencies is that the two are not in fact equivalent -- you have two issuers that are separately backing each currency. In the case of 2-way pegging however, the two currencies are equivalent. You only ever get sidecoins by making bitcoins inaccessible, and vice versa. It isn't about fixing exchange rates between two currencies, rather it is about using the same exact currency on two different networks: sidecoins are bitcoins, and bitcoins are sidecoins.
Quote
thank you for explaining it like this, this is for me totally sound even though you can wonder from a non-technical perspective why you need this special tokens on sidechains, when they are equivalent to bitcoin, but I assume this is like for xcp a technical reason.
after that wonderful explanation of 2way pegging, I was assuming a great answer to that part. I have to say I cannot agree less. The reason for innovation (not invention) is rent seeking, if you follow Schumpeter even by definition. This view is after all I know widely accepted over all schools of economics, from the libertarians to the almost ultra-left wing economists, and seen as welfare increasing. To put together a new combination of ideas and capital is probably the most driving force in capitalist developement.
Speculating on this assets is referred to Schumpeter seen as "gods work" because it is allocating money to the best ideas, this money is used for building an entire industry around this idea, creating a slippery slope of innovation, investment and re-innovation. The beauty of the value web following the invention of Satoshi is that it is even self-enforcing the factors (capital, ideas, labour) for creating this slippery slope. This is for me one of the reasons why cryptoeconomics has a huge chance to succeed.
Do not get me wrong, from a non-technical perspective I think it is useful to try to set Bitcoin Protocol as the TCP/IP of internet for money, but you should make sure that there is a sound incentive model for developers, which is encouraging innovation. I think this model is not doing this and probably even leading to the opposite direction. Also reading Adams post on the mailing list for the motivation to do two way pegging was in this way depressing. It sounds, even though I think it is unintentional, like someone who wants to protect the status quo.
April 10, 2014, 06:05:22 PM
In my mind, the only valid currencies are those which are distinct from each other in terms of their economic model, and which possess the most free, fair, and wide distribution of their class. For store of value currencies, that is Bitcoin. For demurrage / transactional currencies, the only contender so far is Freicoin. I honestly don't see any other actively developed currencies out there that are trying anything with a different economic model than these two.
Freicoin's 80% issuance through non-profits is a side issue I'd be happy to discuss with you in some other context as its very off topic for this thread.
Freicoin's 80% issuance through non-profits is a side issue I'd be happy to discuss with you in some other context as its very off topic for this thread.
April 10, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
2-way pegging means that value may be transferred at a pegged (fixed) rate in either direction. The "2-way" is in contrast to one-way pegging, which is for example how Counterparty was issued. Unlike proof-of-burn, 2-way pegging involves sending coins to a special form of output which identifies the destination chain and recipient on the other side. At this stage it is similar to proof-of-burn: you have provably made the currency unspendable to you, and in doing so you gain the right to claim an equal number of coins at the destination side chain.
What's new is the return peg: to move those side chain coins back onto bitcoin, you perform the same operation again. First you send the side-chain coins to a special output naming the bitcoin chain and yourself as recipient. On the bitcoin side you take one of those previous burn-like outputs which sent coins into the side chain, and present your proof of having "burnt" sidecoins in order to claim an equal number of real bitcoins.
This special form output is a script which is able to understand an embedded proof-of-spend from another chain, which validates the accounting rules (you need to spend X bitcoins to claim X sidecoins, and vice versa), and which makes sure that claimed coins go to the indicated recipient.
This sortof-is and sortof-isn't fixed exchange rates. If you are coming from an economic background you know the problems of fixed exchange rates, but those problems don't really apply here. The problem with a fixed exchange rate over national currencies is that the two are not in fact equivalent -- you have two issuers that are separately backing each currency. In the case of 2-way pegging however, the two currencies are equivalent. You only ever get sidecoins by making bitcoins inaccessible, and vice versa. It isn't about fixing exchange rates between two currencies, rather it is about using the same exact currency on two different networks: sidecoins are bitcoins, and bitcoins are sidecoins.
Regarding innovation, monetary reward from speculative asset issuance is a failed model. Any innovation that occurs could be cloned on a side chain using bitcoins, freicoins, or some other already issued coin as the native currency. In a free market there is absolutely no reason to prefer the non-pegged alternative.
What's new is the return peg: to move those side chain coins back onto bitcoin, you perform the same operation again. First you send the side-chain coins to a special output naming the bitcoin chain and yourself as recipient. On the bitcoin side you take one of those previous burn-like outputs which sent coins into the side chain, and present your proof of having "burnt" sidecoins in order to claim an equal number of real bitcoins.
This special form output is a script which is able to understand an embedded proof-of-spend from another chain, which validates the accounting rules (you need to spend X bitcoins to claim X sidecoins, and vice versa), and which makes sure that claimed coins go to the indicated recipient.
This sortof-is and sortof-isn't fixed exchange rates. If you are coming from an economic background you know the problems of fixed exchange rates, but those problems don't really apply here. The problem with a fixed exchange rate over national currencies is that the two are not in fact equivalent -- you have two issuers that are separately backing each currency. In the case of 2-way pegging however, the two currencies are equivalent. You only ever get sidecoins by making bitcoins inaccessible, and vice versa. It isn't about fixing exchange rates between two currencies, rather it is about using the same exact currency on two different networks: sidecoins are bitcoins, and bitcoins are sidecoins.
Regarding innovation, monetary reward from speculative asset issuance is a failed model. Any innovation that occurs could be cloned on a side chain using bitcoins, freicoins, or some other already issued coin as the native currency. In a free market there is absolutely no reason to prefer the non-pegged alternative.
Not to side-track the discussion regarding two-way pegs - but.., Why do you think Freicoins (which has an 80% premine) should be a non-speculative standard that makes sense to use (despite the fact that the functionality is not yet implemented), where as Counterparty (which has better dispersed distribution than bitcoin btw) ought to be considered a failed model?
April 10, 2014, 05:11:21 PM
2-way pegging means that value may be transferred at a pegged (fixed) rate in either direction. The "2-way" is in contrast to one-way pegging, which is for example how Counterparty was issued. Unlike proof-of-burn, 2-way pegging involves sending coins to a special form of output which identifies the destination chain and recipient on the other side. At this stage it is similar to proof-of-burn: you have provably made the currency unspendable to you, and in doing so you gain the right to claim an equal number of coins at the destination side chain.
What's new is the return peg: to move those side chain coins back onto bitcoin, you perform the same operation again. First you send the side-chain coins to a special output naming the bitcoin chain and yourself as recipient. On the bitcoin side you take one of those previous burn-like outputs which sent coins into the side chain, and present your proof of having "burnt" sidecoins in order to claim an equal number of real bitcoins.
This special form output is a script which is able to understand an embedded proof-of-spend from another chain, which validates the accounting rules (you need to spend X bitcoins to claim X sidecoins, and vice versa), and which makes sure that claimed coins go to the indicated recipient.
This sortof-is and sortof-isn't fixed exchange rates. If you are coming from an economic background you know the problems of fixed exchange rates, but those problems don't really apply here. The problem with a fixed exchange rate over national currencies is that the two are not in fact equivalent -- you have two issuers that are separately backing each currency. In the case of 2-way pegging however, the two currencies are equivalent. You only ever get sidecoins by making bitcoins inaccessible, and vice versa. It isn't about fixing exchange rates between two currencies, rather it is about using the same exact currency on two different networks: sidecoins are bitcoins, and bitcoins are sidecoins.
Regarding innovation, monetary reward from speculative asset issuance is a failed model. Any innovation that occurs could be cloned on a side chain using bitcoins, freicoins, or some other already issued coin as the native currency. In a free market there is absolutely no reason to prefer the non-pegged alternative.
What's new is the return peg: to move those side chain coins back onto bitcoin, you perform the same operation again. First you send the side-chain coins to a special output naming the bitcoin chain and yourself as recipient. On the bitcoin side you take one of those previous burn-like outputs which sent coins into the side chain, and present your proof of having "burnt" sidecoins in order to claim an equal number of real bitcoins.
This special form output is a script which is able to understand an embedded proof-of-spend from another chain, which validates the accounting rules (you need to spend X bitcoins to claim X sidecoins, and vice versa), and which makes sure that claimed coins go to the indicated recipient.
This sortof-is and sortof-isn't fixed exchange rates. If you are coming from an economic background you know the problems of fixed exchange rates, but those problems don't really apply here. The problem with a fixed exchange rate over national currencies is that the two are not in fact equivalent -- you have two issuers that are separately backing each currency. In the case of 2-way pegging however, the two currencies are equivalent. You only ever get sidecoins by making bitcoins inaccessible, and vice versa. It isn't about fixing exchange rates between two currencies, rather it is about using the same exact currency on two different networks: sidecoins are bitcoins, and bitcoins are sidecoins.
Regarding innovation, monetary reward from speculative asset issuance is a failed model. Any innovation that occurs could be cloned on a side chain using bitcoins, freicoins, or some other already issued coin as the native currency. In a free market there is absolutely no reason to prefer the non-pegged alternative.
Jump to: