Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address” - page 35. (Read 448462 times)

The entire mastercoin protocol is bordering on insanity.  There is no correlation as to amount of BTC sent and the MSC that is sent.  It is completely arbitrary.   In short, there is no real security that the MSC that is received is even the MSC that is available to send.

What this means is the value of 1 MSC is the same as 100 MSC or 1,000 MSC!   So you do the math?  If 1 MSC = 100 MSC = 1,000 MSC  then clearly the underlying unit is zero.

they are not bound, you can spend all the btc on the address, and the msc will still be on the address

So I decided to check this new hot protocol over faucet. I entered all data properly and to my surprise got 0.0000546
BTC on my Bitcoin address but 0.00125 MSC to Mastercoin address. Now I'm totally confused about the whole deal here.

1. Why amounts for BTC and MSC differ?
2. When it comes to how much BTC and MSC one receives over faucet, is ratio constant or random?
3. What happens with my 0.0000546 BTC if I spend my 0.00125 MSC or I do it the other way around? In other words,
are those 0.0000546 BTC now bound to 0.00125 MSC or not?

http://mastercoin-explorer.com/transactions/5c707b42cebe78283eb2d4c61e4dd7d4a241f35690b265e862844b58ef489bbe

I am curious what kind of people are in charge of mastercoin, because it's the most important thing that will determine mastercoin's eventual success or failure (assuming the idea has some technical merit). It's relevant for people thinking about obtaining mastercoins.

Is there a free Mastercoin Logo that can be reused with no license? I'm looking to make some Mastercoin Stickers and was looking for a suitable graphics file to print.

I have a question about Mastercoin and why the Mastercoin protocol layer is needed. Couldn't the features that Mastercoin wants to build be created directly on top of Bitcoin without Mastercoin? I know the Mastercoin exodus address was created to give an incentive for these features to be created in the first place, but doesn't that incentive already exist with people who own bitcoins? In other words, don't holders of bitcoins benefit from supporting projects such as Open Transactions and Colored Coins? I am interested in many of the features that will be built on top of Mastercoin, but I am wondering if people would prefer those features to be built directly on top of Bitcoin. For example, with the decentralized exchange, won't users prefer to trade bitcoins directly for a stock or currency in the Colored Coins wallet rather than exchanging bitcoins for mastercoins and then into the stock or currency? It seems that the middle Mastercoin layer adds a bit of extra volatility with the Mastercoin currency that is not needed. When it comes to people with dollars or other fiat currencies who want to trade on one of these decentralized exchanges, wouldn't they be more likely to trade from bitcoins into the new currencies and stocks rather than mastercoins? People will want to use a less volatile currency, such as bitcoin, to do their trading, and it is likely that Bitcoin will have more liquidity, and therefore, less price volatility.

Edit: After doing more reading it seems that users interacting with the Mastercoin decentralized exchange may not need to own Mastercoins. They will be able to load their bitcoins into the client and then trade them directly for other user-made currencies. Is this how it works?

His HYPE-meter went off, and he was kind enough to share that information.

Do you really give that much of a shit about the title of the paper?

J.R. published his paper in January of 2012, well after lots of people realized the huge significance of Satoshi's work. The original paper already had a somewhat legendary status at that time.

Even if J.R.'s paper is as brilliant as he apparently thinks it is, a normal person in his shoes would publish it with a less tacky title and let people realize its worth on their own.


It sounds like you know some very try-hard PhDs. In general it's considered socially awkward to do that.


There are so many other ways to disambiguate though. How many other people feel the need to insert 'CEO' in their github handle? You know github is a developer community and devs are famously skeptical of titles and primarily care about what you've actually created right? What if he had put "VIP" in his handle to disambiguate? Totally normal?


Just some acknowledgement from these people showing that they're somewhat self-aware, like "Yeah, I know it was pretty douchey of me, but I was just really excited about the concept when I released that paper. I'm kind of embarrassed about that now."

"David Johnston" isn't an unique name, I guess he added "CEO" just to disambiguate. It's informative.

As for "The Second Bitcoin Whitepaper", it is as cheesy as it sounds... I don't know what kind of an explanation you're looking for.

FYI J.R. also created this: https://sites.google.com/site/2ndbtcwpaper/using-memes-to-explain-bitcoin#!

And this: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/04/bitcoins-dystopian-future#!