It is a common misconception that Mastercoin is a technology.
this 'misCONception' might have something to do with what is written at http://Mastercoin.org, registered to Ron Gross somewhere near Technion University.
Topic: Colored coins VS Mastercoins - Which one is better? - page 2. (Read 18943 times)
It is a common misconception that Mastercoin is a technology.
this 'misCONception' might have something to do with what is written at http://Mastercoin.org, registered to Ron Gross somewhere near Technion University.
Mastercoin is premined shit that will never be a success.
Your understanding of cryptocurrency is clear. You and your people should stick with Litecoin where you can flourish amongst your peers. 
Mastercoin is premined shit that will never be a success.
A detailed comparison between Mastercoin and colored coins is available at http://w3.reddit.com/r/coloredcoin/comments/1o6yke/colored_coins_or_mastercoin/ccpgy0x.
Colored coins are technically superior and based on a much stronger conceptual foundation. Mastercoin is more ambitious, aspiring to offer more features than colored coins. Colored coin proponents aim to develop a truly p2p platform, while Mastercoin is much more centralized and managed to raise funding with promises of getting rich quick.
Mastercoin, on the other hand, uses a message system for updating a global state, and thus does not support SPV.
Colored coins are technically superior and based on a much stronger conceptual foundation. Mastercoin is more ambitious, aspiring to offer more features than colored coins. Colored coin proponents aim to develop a truly p2p platform, while Mastercoin is much more centralized and managed to raise funding with promises of getting rich quick.
Neither Mastercoin nor colored coins support SPV security. You can't tell if you've received a payment unless you are running a full node and storing the entire index (extended with an additional index for the overlay coin). And storing/updating the additional index could be arbitrarily expensive, especially if you want to support many different colors.
Most mobile phone clients use SPV security. You probably can't have a comparably secure phone client for colored coins or Mastercoin.
Not true. Colored coins transaction validity is local, and therefore verification requires just the relevant tx subgraph, which is small. This means SPV clients can definitely work.Most mobile phone clients use SPV security. You probably can't have a comparably secure phone client for colored coins or Mastercoin.
Mastercoin, on the other hand, uses a message system for updating a global state, and thus does not support SPV.
It is a common misconception that Mastercoin is a technology.
Mastercoin isn't a technology. It is a DAC with the goal of building a Forex/value exchange/betting/prediction market.
The technology stack can easily be swapped out under Mastercoin (proof is left for the reader. There's a bounty).
In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
The project is not very technically rigorous. I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet.
Rather than complain in a snobbish manner about everyone else's project why don't you crowd fund your own project so we can contribute to and work on your more rigorous technical solution?
I look forward to seeing the source code.
My opinion on the centralization problem is that the purpose behind decentralization is to protect the protocol and participants from compromise. Bittorrent is sufficiently decentralized even though websites such as the PirateBay are used. This is because as soon as one of these websites are shut down another can replace it.
Mirroring can solve a lot of problems. The solution used by Linux distributions (repositories) can solve it, the point is you can have sufficient decentralization using the web. Whether or not they will find the right balance is yet to be seen, but it is a balance between convenience, usability and decentralization.
Well, since I'm not an ego-obsessed developer, I'd rather not try to stuff the blockchain with an inferior alt-coin implementation pretending to NOT be a get-rich-quick-scheme. Some people, however, aren't able to restrain themselves, and I'll gleefully point out every single flaw as this clusterfuck-alt-coin progresses.
I can't wait to see what they put out in the future to undermine their own efforts. The centralization of contract verification is a sweet, sweet dessert though, I may need a bit of a nap to digest that succulent pastry of failure.
Don't waste any time reading that - colored coins is a dead concept now. Master is much bigger already, has much higher ceiling, has money in hand, does everything CC does, but better.
It's far from being dead. Colored Coins is already implemented in Nxt. Right now I'm reading a specification of a decentralized exchange based on Colored Coins. Server-side is ready, client-side will be ready in a week.
In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
The project is not very technically rigorous. I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet.
Rather than complain in a snobbish manner about everyone else's project why don't you crowd fund your own project so we can contribute to and work on your more rigorous technical solution?
I look forward to seeing the source code.
My opinion on the centralization problem is that the purpose behind decentralization is to protect the protocol and participants from compromise. Bittorrent is sufficiently decentralized even though websites such as the PirateBay are used. This is because as soon as one of these websites are shut down another can replace it.
Mirroring can solve a lot of problems. The solution used by Linux distributions (repositories) can solve it, the point is you can have sufficient decentralization using the web. Whether or not they will find the right balance is yet to be seen, but it is a balance between convenience, usability and decentralization.
In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
The project is not very technically rigorous. I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed that out yet.
Trust the dev team to fix all those little minor problems.
Money for bountys is now $1.7M...
Before end of the contest, you'll see amazing feature coming !
Money for bountys is now $1.7M...
Before end of the contest, you'll see amazing feature coming !
In the Mastercoin dev thread, it is being admitted that the more order types there are, the harder it is to differentiate them. This is what I call a protocol-stuffing problem, and it results from trying to piggyback on Bitcoin.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
So, the brilliant solution? You guessed it, they want to have an API that is a WEBSITE call, to differentiate transactions. Is that the smell of becoming CENTRALIZED I sniff? Oh my, it certainly is.
When you have to TRUST a CENTRAL server to tell you what your TRANSACTIONS are, you're pretty much boned. A+ for effort, though.
Bitcoin was interesting because it had ZERO TRUST, not only at the technology level, but the financial level as well. Nothing was BACKING it.
That's not lost on me... However I think there is still enough going for the system even if we use it to represent backed assets. Of course, there may be better ways to achieve the goal.I think many in this neck of the woods can't see the forest for the trees. They're stuck in Bitcoin methodologies when clearly we've departed from the problems Bitcoin attempted to solve(that of 'zero trust'). The solution to these problems is very simple, does not require expensive mining, and can provide a basis for a lot of powerful features.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing
Bitcoin was interesting because it had ZERO TRUST, not only at the technology level, but the financial level as well. Nothing was BACKING it.
That's not lost on me... However I think there is still enough going for the system even if we use it to represent backed assets. Of course, there may be better ways to achieve the goal. Something could happen to the other blockchains. I don't see what you mean by "politically attacked" as Bitcoin is decentralized and therefor very hard to attack politically, just look at piracy.
Let's say governments decide to centralize the mining function in the Bitcoin blockchain and gain control of it? That is just one attack. There could be exploits as well against Bitcoin, DDOS against the blockchain, or political attacks all which would stop Bitcoin but wouldn't stop Mastercoin. Mastercoin could work over any blockchain which means if something happens to Bitcoin or if Bitcoin somehow proves itself not to be technologically superior then Mastercoin wont be held up.For instance the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE problem will be an issue with ColoredCoin but is not an issue with Mastercoin or Bitshares.
I just think it is wise to take advantage of the power the bitcoin infrastructure which is the largest cryptocurrency protocol by a long shot and it doesnt look like its going to stop anytime soon, but you are right, it is wise to look at all the alternatives[/b]
Of course, but it's also wise not to be limited to any specific infrastructure. We don't want Bitcoin to become too big to fail.I dont get what you are trying to say here. Mastercoin sounds more and more like an altcoin to me the more I hear people try to "pitch" it. The whole thing about Colored Coins IS about setting a certain amount of satoshis as being worth (in the case of a company share) something concrete in which the p2p market sets the price by how the company is doing and through its business plans.
But how is the price of a satoshi concrete when the price of a Bitcoin is rising, while Bitcoins are being generated continuously, there is no way you can tell me what the price of a satoshi will be and it has nothing to do with the businesses behind it. We don't know because of other variables like mining, influence from institutional investment, speculators, government policies, there are a lot of reasons why we don't know what the price of a satoshi is.
Mastercoin is a messaging protocol layer built on top of a blockchain (the Bitcoin blockchain at this time). It's more than a mere coin. It's an economy onto itself while a coin is just a unit of account.
The beauty of Mastercoin is what you'll be enabled to do with it. If ColoredCoin enables us to do all the same stuff then we'll just have both. But at this point in time Mastercoin has the momentum and is in the lead. It's not like all of these solutions will implement all their features at the same time so one will be first in a certain area making us use that while another will be first in another area making us use that. We will have to use them all if they market themselves right and compete on innovation.
Trying to use propaganda, or claim that Mastercoin can't work, I don't see that. Not only do I see Mastercoin as being potentially successful but I can already point to some successes. When it can do what we all want it to do then it will dramatically improve the economy for us all and that includes the people who promote ColoredCoins.
ColoredCoins are not a bad idea, but if it were such a powerful and elegant idea then where is the proof? Where is the decentralized exchange with smart property and user currencies? Talk is cheap. Produce the code.
Mastercoin all the way
Haha.
Anyone care to comment on the difference between bitshares and mastercoin? I just don't have the time to look into it myself at the moment.
I get the clear impression that practically no one here is actually reading these papers, or even has the background knowledge to determine if they are valid or not.
Mastercoin all the way
Haha.
Anyone care to comment on the difference between bitshares and mastercoin? I just don't have the time to look into it myself at the moment.
Mastercoin all the way
Because you have Mastercoins and because Mastercoins are stable. I am not convinced Colored Coins will be more stable than Bitcoin but if it can then it will do well. For me I like the fact that Mastercoin provides an escrow because I shouldn't have to trust the issuer to honor the contract and having Mastercoins as escrow will allow for people to have a place to put their wealth to use creating new currencies in a way which isn't too much risk. I also like that Mastercoin can act as a unit of measure for the entire system where all wealth in the system can be determined by an unchanging Mastercoin. There will be very minimal inflation in Mastercoin compared to Bitcoin and that means a lot less volatility and a much better measuring unit.
If you like Colored Coin then use it, but if you like Mastercoin then use it. Some people will certainly pick one or the other, some will use both. Some will use Bitshares and some will use all three.
Why wouldn't you use all three?
You could use all three but what I am interested in is what system is best for asset management such as stocks for a company. The thing with Colored Coins from what I understand is that it IS Bitcoin. It is just about assigning certain outputs with a certain value other than their corresponding Bitcoin value.
Exactly, it is Bitcoin. So if something happens to Bitcoin what happens to your stock?
If something happens to Bitcoin then Mastercoin can just use another blockchain. If something happens to Bitcoin then Bitshares has it's own blockchain. Colored Coin has no alternative so if something happens to Bitcoin such as if it gets politically attacked, or if there is some problem with it found it will affect Colored Coin because ColoredCoin is not platform independent.
Unless you are a business oriented individual are prone to believe that Bitcoin will be the only cryptocurrency, that Bitcoin will be the final cryptocurrency, and that whatever your doing should die with Bitcoin, then perhaps it's in your self interest to diversify.
For that reason if I had to choose between Colored Coin and Mastercoin I would choose Mastercoin. Between Colored Coin and Bitshares I would choose Bitshares.
Additionally I would choose Mastercoin because I think you need a unit of measurement. For example the amount of energy in the universe is the same from the big bang right now and it never changes. Energy is never created or destroyed. This gives us the only sense of stability we have in this universe and allows for all the laws of physics, structure, and clarity in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Bitcoin in my opinion is not a good foundation from which to build a unit of measurement because it's still in an inflationary period. Mastercoin is in an inflationary period too but we know exactly the rate that Mastercoins will be created and the bonus Mastercoins wont create any volatility because they'll be used for development and we are talking an nominal amount.
So for our purposes Mastercoin will be fixed in time/space, will become very stable, and will serve as a good unit of measurement. I don't believe Bitshares will be able to do this as well because it too will be mined, but I think at least with Bitshares that mining will provide redundancy and diversification. I think redundancy and diversification are good for the long term security of cryptocurrencies in general because if someone could destroy the Bitcoin blockchain they would not destroy Bitshares or Mastercoin but that would destroy ColoredCoin's Bitcoin implementation.
There is a way around this which involves implementing ColoredCoin on Litecoin, Primecoin, PPCoin and Freicoin. I think if it's implemented on enough altcoins then you could theoretically have redundancy but then you would have the problem of volatility and all these separate implementations would run any chances of trying to use it as a standard unit of measurement.
How many atoms exist? Well if the number changes depending on how you look at it then it's impossible to form any includes on anything in the universe. That number has to be fixed, set in stone, unchanging, and then we can say gold has an atomic weight of 196.966569. We know gold has 79 neutrons. We know where gold rests within the 10^78 atoms in the visible universe and that says something.
ColoredCoin wont be able to do that because it's not ever going to be a precise measure of the value of something else because it's abstract (Bitcoins posing as ColoredCoins) rather than something concrete (set in stone). If I ask how many ColoredCoins will exist on the Bitcoin blockchain no one can tell me that answer. If we assume every Bitcoin can also be a Colored Coin that is the closest thing to an answer I could come up with.
If I ask how many Mastercoins will exist in the Bitcoin universe the exact measurement is 619478.59338440. This number will not change and cannot change ever.
Knowing this and knowing that most of the Mastercoins that shall exist came into existence instantaneously, it can become very stable. If you want to know how many atoms are in an oz of gold you can ask, and if you want to know how many Mastercoins are in goldcoins you can find that out as well. The amount of Mastercoins which make up a gold coin is critical for measuring the value backing the gold coin escrow. The gold in their vault might or might not exist but we will know the value in their escrow exists.
The main use case is company stock. You have to believe in the company of course, but you don't need to rely on any centralized, cumbersome stock exchange.
And this is why, Meni, that Color Coins are generally irrelevant. Bitcoin was interesting because it had ZERO TRUST, not only at the technology level, but the financial level as well. Nothing was BACKING it. Color Coins suggest BACKING and exchangeability, thus you've removed zero trust AND you can safely remove the technological zero-trust(POW) from the equation as well. This is what has been done with Confidence Chains.
This is why Mastercoin relies on escrow. You don't have to trust the issuer but the system definitely works better if you can. The other scheme is contract for difference which doesn't require any trust at all except in mathematics.
You could use all three but what I am interested in is what system is best for asset management such as stocks for a company. The thing with Colored Coins from what I understand is that it IS Bitcoin. It is just about assigning certain outputs with a certain value other than their corresponding Bitcoin value.
Peer-to-Peer Asset Issuance And Transactions With Confidence Chains:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing
Really couldn't digest it all clearly but does this use blockchains other than the Bitcoin blockchain? The marvelous thing about bitcoin is that you have MASSIVE amounts of hardware backing its security of the blockchain and verification system. I enjoy colored coins because it takes advantage of the bitcoin blockchain which should be the protocol from which system can be built upon.
It does use block chains similar to Bitcoin. It DOES NOT use THE BLOCKCHAIN- this seems to be the point of departure between Confidence Chains and the other technologies in this class.
There are problems with using the BTC Blockchain for other purposes. For instance Meni Rosenfeld posted a video recently where one of the speakers claims that the blockchain is 'free'. It's not free, and that seems to be a common misperception, and this thinking is what led to the problems of COIN DUST. When you start to use the Blockchain for all sorts of things(perhaps some clearly abusive others are useful), than this will greatly magnify this problem of what is permissible use of the block chain and what is not. It also suggests some very complex problems about the economics of mining. In addition complex financial functions require judgement- how will we implement that using the blockchain? Already this group has demonstrated a lack of vision in this department. It was quite obvious that microtransactions would be a problem however the term did not even appear on the list until I brought it up.
Clearly the public has not fully grasped what Confidence Chains is. I often get emails asking how someone can mine Confidence Chains for profit. note: there is no mining in Confidence Chains.
It's a major departure from the concept of Bitcoin. A break with Bitcoin ideas is appropriate when you start to venture into the world of financial instruments. Re. some of the other projects, Im instantly wary of any project that wants me to buy some of their credits up front for some awesome feature in the future(Ripple Redux?). As soon as someone defines some kind of requirement, we get a dozen people log in here and post some new project that claims to have a solution.
You could use all three but what I am interested in is what system is best for asset management such as stocks for a company. The thing with Colored Coins from what I understand is that it IS Bitcoin. It is just about assigning certain outputs with a certain value other than their corresponding Bitcoin value.
Peer-to-Peer Asset Issuance And Transactions With Confidence Chains:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing
Really couldn't digest it all clearly but does this use blockchains other than the Bitcoin blockchain? The marvelous thing about bitcoin is that you have MASSIVE amounts of hardware backing its security of the blockchain and verification system. I enjoy colored coins because it takes advantage of the bitcoin blockchain which should be the protocol from which system can be built upon.
Jump to: