Topic: P2P Exchange for bitcoin - page 3. (Read 42783 times)

Yep 

As far as I understand it is a kind of P2P decentralized localbitcoins, right?

I completely agree re: coagulation of liquidity, but with anonymity comes a certain challenge to trust.  At this point it's a physical exchange, and thus the burden of trust is on end-users, elqnt simply provides a means to find each other.  The issue with the method you mentioned is that as soon as you have a centralized organization producing any kind of 'credit ledger' or the like, they can soon expect to get a knock on the door for being an online money transmitter (as seen with other internally developed digital currencies used to exchange BTC).  Staying at the individual level with direct peer-to-peer exchanges keeps things below the regulations and issues around being considered an online money transmitter (which brings with it a removal of anonymity to comply).  Making this peer-to-peer exchange as smooth as possible is the goal and some form of distributed 'credit ledger' would be fantastic to layer on, but I'm not sure how this would work.

Regarding services like ripple and other exchanges:

The core issue I take with networks like ripple is that they break the benefit of anonymity, and without this, Bitcoin looses almost all advantages over fiat currencies.

I lost faith in Bitcoin for a period of time simply because if a 3rd-party can observe who the money is coming from when it comes in and who it goes to when it comes out, then decentralization and internal anonymization mean almost nothing.  The exchange in + out of Bitcoin must be anonymous in order for the decentralized nature to have benefit.  Once you loose anonymity, enforceable regulation is soon behind, along with taxation.

The prior is why I'm opposed to any layering of identification onto Bitcoin (much like what Google is working on internally, to produce 'clean' Bitcoins via layered identity) or tracking in/out of the platform itself through linked bank accounts at online exchanges. 

This ultimately led me to explore options that would fit within current regulations and thus WebRTC produced the most readily available solution, and now I see a possibility for Bitcoin to remain valuable through Anonymous exchanges conducted peer-to-peer physically. 

Currently it's a physical exchange only, much like Craigslist.  Elqnt provides a means to find exchangers in your area, which you chat with directly in the platform and agree on a price and meeting place to conduct the exchange.  It's up to the end users to handle the trust of the exchange, but my current conceptual work-flow to handle trust with these physical exchanges is the following scenario --

Two users agree on a price + location.  They meet at the location, cash is presented and verified.  The bitcoin holder makes transfer, which is then verified after a few minutes (grab a coffee + chat while you wait).  After verification, cash (or whatever) is given to the seller of Bitcoin.  If both parties are happy with the exchange and would like to follow-up with further exchanges, additional contact details might be exchanged for direct communication later. 

I'd love to implement a reputation mechanism, but I'm shying away from UIDs and accounts all together.  The vision is an exchange that is a completely open ecosystem which will solve the 'last-mile' problem for those wanting to exchange easily and anonymously with Bitcoin.

This is a brilliant step, and congratulations for the person who thought this up!

However, as constructive criticsm, I must say that the poster below (Astrohacker) who makes a comment regarding trust has a valid point. This idea of lack of trust is what coagulates the liquidity of trading in any peer-to-peer exchange.

I do understand that alot of us are not fans of ripple because they bastardise what the protocol actually stands for, however the concept of having a network (and thus a route) of trust is something that can help with this regard. The problem is that in order for it to be effective, the trust network needs to reach a critical mass for it to be effective. It's a catch 22 but it is the only way I can see exchanges happening properly. This trust could naturaly develop when bitcoiners trade small amounts amongst each other first to build up trust, and then you can have this expressed as a credit line, so as people make small trades with everybody, the more collective trust there is to finance this ripple-like system.

This is what I believe would propel the idea of P2P exchange.

I don't know how do you handle the trust, I'm not going to send 300 € or Bitcoins to anybody I can't trust. It's just like localbitcoin or this forum but without trust.

Amazing. I just read about WebRTC today thanks to the new version of Firefox which has this enabled by default. This is definitely the next step in exchange technology.

I've been working on a new peer-to-peer exchange that employs WebRTC for the past few weeks. 

It's pretty unique because it fully complies with FinCEN's regulations around exchange because all communication in the platform is conducted directly peer-to-peer and subsequent exchanges are conducted physically by the respective exchangers (I'd love to employ an online transfer in further iterations, but don't have a good solution yet). 

I just went live with an early alpha tonight if others would like to try it out and give feedback. 

My primary goal with the platform is give as much anonymity as possible, meaning that I self-host all files (no external js).  I'm stuck using an external tile-server (which means mapquest logs some data, including IP + timestamp), but I hope to get some capacity soon to bring that in-house as well so no external logging of users occurs (beyond ISPs).

The site is elqnt.org (pronounced eloquent).

Best,
Stephen

An actually existing p2p exchange demo:

groups.google.com/forum/?hl=cs&fromgroups=#!topic/bitcoinx/i9-OdIxNDfE

Suggested system for P2P exchange:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/146822045/BitXChange

+1

That is right. From what I have seen it is run by a few people. Those making their own software should use a FOSS model too, IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

Since troll threads are increasingly popular, i'd welcome comments from you guys on this draft:

https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/wiki/crosschain-p2ptrade

 Chris, sorry if you're having another emotional fit- but maybe if you READ my message you would have learned that:

 the various contributors need to give you a WRITTEN SIGNED CONSENT before you dual license the software to any other company.  Basically, if what you say is true, then for anyone to use OpenTransactions for business purposes they need to get legal consent from EVERY CONTRIBUTOR- this includes of course, yourself.  This means also that if you provide some service that includes a dual-license agreement, and other do not claim the copyright at the time of signing - they can do so later, for presumably any price.  You might want to inform your customers of that.

so this message goes out to anyone who has checked anything into the OpenTransactions GPL code.

 if you would have bothered following any of those links it's more or less a forgone conclusion that GPL is not business compatible.  Youre really several steps behind the curve as far as Open Source goes.  But it seems you don't have many smart friends to tell you these things.  I wonder why?

 not sure why you keep linking that thread, there's nothing in there but a explanation of my history with this project and more information about how what you say is totally misleading. [1]

 oh, and too bad you can't lock this thread when the conversation goes in a direction you dont like- similar to what you did in the last 3 that I participated in.  Or maybe you can make some more Reddit sock puppet accounts?


[1] btw - Chris is ONCE AGAIN claiming that Open Transactions is Peer To Peer.  Of course Chris finds a way to talk about himself while making it *look like* he's talking about some other project.  http://www.reddit.com/r/Namecoin/comments/1fua6b/your_project_is_important_and_i_am_behind_you/

I just wanted to point out this false statement by bluemeanie1 aka Joshua Zeidner.

The truth is that "the copyright owner" is all contributors to the project (not just the lead developer.)

And as you can see by browsing the commit history for Open-Transactions, the project has many contributors. (None of whom work for my commercial effort, Monetas.)

Therefore I have no secret powers over OT, as he implies.

I suggest you take Joshua Zeidner's claims with a grain of salt, due to his true motivations.

thats an interesting idea for sure

it isnt decentralized. . .

how do you know?  just taking their word for it?

I find it interesting how people will implicitly trust anyone who claims to be an open source developer.  There is an assumption that there are no gain motives in these scenarios thus most rule out the possibility of deception.

ie. If someone is giving away something for free, why would they be lying about it?

I've posted elsewhere some of the statements of the project founder, and copyright owner of OT.  Let's just assume for a moment that there are no issues with the actual technology of OT(and there are), and just discuss the notion of licensing.  What Chris Odom believes, is that anyone who modifies the OT code must check back in all their changes and publish them.  This makes it virtually impossible to have a competitive business using OT, because all of your competitors have access to anything you might innovate.  There is one party that is not subject to this rule, and that is Chris himself.

this concept is described here: http://producingoss.com/en/dual-licensing.html

an excerpt:


so technically, whoever contributes to this software project needs to also declare their copyright, and worse- anyone who uses it competitively must also gain permission from EVERY copyright owner(in theory, fact is these cases have rarely ever come up in court).  So if anyone has contributed to this project, they also have a right to any profits gained from the licensing of this software.  If what Chris claims is true, that there are MANY contributors to OT, then there also should be many Copyright owners(and this should be indicated in the software code).

So here, we are talking to the 'community' and what does that mean for us?  Basically this makes building on top of OT pointless(and this isnt the only reason that's true), and anything you contribute to the project is, presumably, also under the same license and license owner(although this particular aspect is not clear and falls under the poorly defined 'derivative work').  Fact is GPL is not really amenable to business ideas: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5935 .  So if you want to do something profitable(personally I dont think you could do that with OT even if it were licensed MIT), you must rule out GPL licensed software.

Another good article about why GPL use is declining: http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/233753/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-faster-ever


AGPL. is even MORE restrictive!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

Basically it closes a known loophole in the GPL, that of using the software without modification(and not requiring publication) over a network(which will be in all cases if anyone ever manages to use this software to do something).  Bitmessage for instance, is MIT licensed- it's based in sound concepts, it looks like an actual open source project.

So basically, this 'bounty' is an attempt by Chris Odom to get development done for free on his software platform.  This is not the only suprise you get with OT but I'll save those for later.    Sorry if this doesn't read like a fun story out of Wired, but these are the nitty gritty facts of working in these areas.

They're building the GUI for it right now (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/holy-grail-bounty-225954). It's "usable," but is command-line only  

It's not necessarily BTC <-> GOLD.  It has digital vouchers, which is the same basic thing OpenTransactions has.  Last time I looked at the project, the server was not open source.

It has been around for a number of years though, and has a measure of credibility in the DC space.

then why don't we use it?