Topic: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network - page 148. (Read 249434 times)

BTER finally showed my 5million deposit!

Holy shit, out of the blue and after almost 1 year Bter finally gave our Qora back, it's a miracle!

Regardless, stay away from Bter.

Any exchange claiming they're having wallet issues for nearly 1 year doesn't deserve anyone's business IMHO.

Hi Qora Dev,
Can you please add qora to Bitrex , thank you

hey guys, who is now in the development team? also, can someone sum up what was happening in last months?

Oh yes Qora needs better PR, obviously.

There's always a temptation to build a swiss-army knife with technology, but often it damages usability. That's a reason why Google crushed all the other 'portal' search engines that were popular in the mid 90's. Page rank gave better results, but for a noobie the main advantage was the Google screen was just so easy to use. Separating things into separate blockchains is a good design idea if it makes things more user-friendly, and it does work against centralisation as CIYAM points out. I like it

It's a pity that the ACCT AT was so poorly reported (due to the theft of the Burst marketing funds for it) so it isn't even understood that between Qora and Burst there is no tx malleability issue (and that is no longer a problem when using Bitcoin and Litecoin now due to CLTV).

In fact I am pretty certain that the first ever live-net ACCT (i.e. between two live-net blockchains) was between Qora and Burst using AT (it is possible some experimental (and subject to tx malleability attack) tx took place between Bitcoin and Litecoin previously but I had only read about ACCT being performed using "testnet" before the ACCT AT went live).

I see. Thanks for expounding.

Recent discussion of cross chain txs on /r/bitcoin:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4dum58/zeroknowledge_atomic_crossblockchain_swaps/
Burst mentioned but not Qora.

Another reason for multiple blockchains is that for some commercial enterprises the use of a cloud services to host the majority (if not all) of the nodes might be what such commercial enterprises actually want to do (I can see the equivalent of shopping centre vouchers perhaps working like this in the future).

So in short I don't see that we can have a "one size fits all" blockchain (and I think that it is prudent to have alternatives much like perhaps carrying more than one type of credit card).

The main point of dividing up applications into separate blockchains is to prevent centralisation (which will always eventually result in corruption IMO). It also makes it easier to market something that isn't trying to be everything (a problem that Qora currently has IMO).

If you look at the way that the world-wide-web has currently evolved we have multiple "application platforms" rather than just one "this is everything" web-site (i.e. that's why you are using BCT rather than Google for your posts).

I have been against the idea of Bitcoin been "the only blockchain" as well (part of the motivation behind the design of AT to be able to function as a way of being able to communicate between blockchains).

Also certain applications will prefer faster confirmations than others (not really possible if you want to put them all in the one) and others might actually be geographically limited (which will be able to work much faster because of that).

It's also a bit like what NASA does with a spaceship - it has multiple redundant systems so if one system malfunctions you don't end up with a catastrophe (by having all blockchains support AT then in fact all applications could be run on any one of them although it might not work as nicely on a blockchain that was designed for a more specific purpose).

In regards to voting I am not interested in a POS approach and the alternative requires a different kind of mechanism to control account creation (which I've been working on for some time now). When you have such a fundamental difference it makes sense to create a different blockchain (rather than to try and add that as another feature to the one blockchain).

What's the advantage of using a completely separate blockchain here over some kind of asset or token? Particularly for ticketing, but I think it applies to the other cases as well, there is a single entity issuing these vouchers, so they can create as many as they want and sell them for whatever price they want (or in the case of voting distribute them).

Both good ideas - especially 1 vote = 1 individual as all voting implementations I've seen are weighted based on stake (maybe I've missed other voting options out there).


 PS - sad to see Vrontis leave qora but happy to see emancipator sticking aroung 

I'll just add a couple of other ideas that I've been thinking about (as the idea of multiple blockchains that all use AT is one that I have held for a long time as well).

One blockchain could become a replacement "ticketing" system for events (and maybe even things like booking transportation).

Another blockchain would be to represent small groups of individuals and support voting (optionally transparent) where one vote represents an individual.

Oh my god, that would be a wonderful USP. Cant wait for it.

update: just thought some days ago, i should write a support ticket again and wow they fixed it, all is perfect.

I agree we need to 'find something that enough people are going to want to use to expand the user-base', but somewhere along the line the users have to contribute some funds (donations or payments). BitTorrent and Bitcoin are great examples where people are motivated to run P2P nodes, but how well have they done at paying developers and supporting things like marketing? A "RedHat of Qora" might be able to help with that, but it isn't an easy thing to setup.

A good example might be how some universities have 'tried' to commercialize some research they do. Those funds can then go back into consolidated revenue which can support other areas that have no monetisation possibilities. Basically there's an attempt to cross-subsidise things that need to be done but don't generate any revenue (like pure science) with things that can generate revenue (like a commercialised application or product). I think eventually crypto funding model needs something similar, and maybe the Linux ecosystem is a good place to look for inspiration.

People working without payment for too long isn't sustainable

That we can do (and @vbcs is currently working on that) in terms of ACCT.

The plan is to actually have Qora have its own Bitcoin wallet and be able to do ACCT between itself and Bitcoin (without any 3rd party exchange).

AFAIA we are the first to be working on this (and it should be ready in a couple of months assuming everything goes well).

Yes, we need AT between Qora and Bitcoin!

To have more than 50% of our Qora at Poloniex and Bter is very bad. We should find something SOON that people want to have their funds in their own wallet!!

The answer to being able to keep things decentralised is the essence of P2P itself.

You need to find something that enough people are going to want to use to expand the user-base so that you have enough nodes to keep it decentralised.

The best examples we have so far are BitTorrent and Bitcoin (but obviously we need something different to those).

IMO some features that @Vrontis added to Qora (the decentralised web and blogging) might hold the key, however, the way that it is currently being done isn't working.

+1

What can the community do to help Vrontis?

These issues currently dominating NXT forum too (how to stay decentralised but raise sufficient money to support people working for little reward).

One suggestion in NXT, create 'the RedHat of NXT'. Could similar be possible with Qora? Create a 'business' that generates revenue fom user support etc, and then use some of that funding to help keep Qora development alive and decentralised.