Topic: Colored coins VS Mastercoins - Which one is better? - page 3. (Read 18943 times)

Peer-to-Peer Asset Issuance And Transactions With Confidence Chains:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing

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.

lets not get nasty... but I do agree there are a lot of dubious claims being thrown around these days regarding various open source projects.  Real money has been spent on Color Coins and for this expenditure to be considered profitable, Color Coins must become a standards for a given set of functions.  At this point I think a number of issues have emerged which suggest this is probably not happening.

There are a number of projects in this space competing for attention.  Color Coins is a respectable idea, the primary problem is that:

It will not only be subject to the issues regarding block chain bloat, microtransactions, and coin dust- it will exacerbate them greatly.  Think Number of Transactions to the power of Number Color Coins.  It's not viable in my view, and the moment you use it for complex financial functions you are seriously pushing performance capacity.  This dovetails into all the other issues that Bitcoin faces in it's natural state.

My project, Confidence Chains, factors out Proof Of Work altogether.  One of the members on the BitcoinX continues to attack me every time I contribute to the conversations.  I originally brought up the issue of Microtransactions/Coin Dust, which this person denounced as irrelevant, later when it became obvious this was a big problem, he pretended as if he knew about it all along(check the list records for evidence of this).  I certainly wish the project well, and Color Coins offers one feature that Confidence Chains does not, and that is Bitcoin's zero trust model.  Confidence Chains gives you much much more though including Decentralized Exchanges, Bond Auctions, and many more features that will be described in upcoming publications.  Virtually any Financial device is possible to implement efficiently and cleanly.  Importantly, it gives you instantaneous transactions and that's a critical factor in many applications.  At best they will need to build protocols ON TOP OF Bitcoin, that are probably MORE complex and difficult to support than basic Confidence Chains.  Meanwhile Confidence Chains gives you these valuable functions out of the box.  I think the inertia that remains is the effort required in order to understand the basic algorithm- it does not behave like Bitcoin and you need to know quite a bit about the basic elements of Bitcoin in order to grasp it.  It's gaining ground at a steady pace though.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing  

But anyway, we need to have an environment of respect AND competition.  There is reason to be angry if you throw significant money at something and an alternative idea pops up.  C'est la vie, suck it up, etc.  But let's be fair, Color Coins was a great effort and deserves respect for it's contribution to the space.

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.

 

nice blog thx sharing

Ah. MasterCoin would support preferred and non-preferred. That would just be issuing two properties - for instance 20k shares preferred, and 80k shares non-preferred.

I was just thinking it would be great to offer that capability, especially if not all shares were created equal (e.g. preferred, non-preferred), furthermore, it can give  peace of mind to the shareholders if an ownership# is added.

People can trade individual shares, blocks of shares, but not fractional.

Yes, I do realize it's not a good idea to store this kind of information in btc blockchain itself.

Issuing 100k shares of stock, yes. What do you want ID numbers for? If it's to pay dividends, we'll have support for that. If you want to put 100k individual unique numbers in the block chain for some reason, please don't! You could write a script to generate 100k unique pieces of property, but that would be very expensive, both for you and for the block chain!

You could do it in CC with advanced color kernels. However note that people will still be able to do mixing transactions.

JR should comment on the ability to do it with Mastercoin.

Right.

Question: If a company wants to issue 100,000 shares of stock, and wants to track each individual share, i.e. each share needs to have an ID associated with it, which coin should they use?

Yes.  Both CC and MSC should handle this from my understanding.

BTW I am writing a weekly update blog for Mastercoin in case you want to track progress: http://blog.mastercoin.org/

The problem with that assumption is that I 'missed the bus' with Bitcoin too, right?

Wrong.

I fully realize the implications of what Master-get-rich-coin is about, well enough, thanks. And you will too - when a) someone eats their lunch for them, and b) the implication of a non-anonymous developer becomes an obvious failing.

Keep going, full steam ahead - never mind that iceberg!

Surely it would work for a contractual right of any kind (such as bonds, options and other derivatives etc). Also, for any kind of personal property that can be net-enabled? 

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.

This thread's title is borderline racist.

I just read a little bit of both schemes. I'm confused by these design

They want to use a token to present any asset. But assets are not like money, usually they don't have fungibility, that requires a whole lot of validation of each assets: What if the underlying asset is destroied or lost? Who is going to audit the quality of each asset? etc ...

Besides, when it comes to purchase of assets, people seldom need an online system, they will meet personally and do the deal in person

Anyway, the abstraction level of both design is low, they are only suitable for a very limited sample of real world situation where the presented asset is standardized, like 99.99% pure gold bar. But, who is going to make sure you didn't get a tungsten stick? That gold bar is not locked together with a token in blockchain

Actually the validation problem is the core reason that an exchange can not be really carried out on a P2P network: Bitcoin's genuinity is validated by the blockchain, there is no problem at this end, but at the other end, you always need to rely on some authority to ensure its validity. On a P2P exchange if you receive lots of counterfeited USD, what you can do with them?  

I'm going to throw my hat in the 'Coloured Coins' Ring..

It's neater/smaller/tighter.. and I'm a big believer in KISS. [Keep It Simple Stupid]

I like MaterCoin, but if I have understood them both correctly, MasterCoin could be run on top of the CC concept ?

Once you have a coloured coin, you can add all the extra hoopla Master Coin does on top of that. You don't need a separate protocol.

I think MasterC adds things that aren't strictly necessary.. That could all/(almost all) be achieved by a 'clever' bitcoin client, that played with Coloured Coins correctly.