Pages:
Author

Topic: The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face. - page 9. (Read 92725 times)

sr. member
Activity: 295
Merit: 250
"to survive, we must live and fly"
It's almost like - since Bitcoin is not going to scale well without transaction fees and wasted energy let's just keep building on top of the flawed protocol and start shifting load to more abstract layers. The problem here is that once a lower layer fails all the upper layers fail as well. You are now making the machine more complex than it needs to be - more inefficient with more moving parts. I now have a lot more trouble programming for and around this machine and building on it more since I need to take into account more moving parts, each which has a chance of breaking. This is not good engineering. Good engineering is fixing all the core problems and embracing the new system that you built, not building a house on top of a cracked, unstable foundation, but replacing the foundation.
sr. member
Activity: 295
Merit: 250
"to survive, we must live and fly"
Unfortunately, this is not closer to the singularity, but farther away from it than Ripple. Why would we go to offchain transactions with more moving parts when we have a far superior fully integrated platform? Ripple does more than just solve the "multiple currency" transaction problem - it provides a more efficient validation and confirmation ledger platform. Mining is unnecessary and inefficient in the long run. We will see higher and higher transaction fees as Bitcoin adoption increases if the block size does not increase. With so many systems and so many moving parts and bottlenecks, a Bitmessage/Open Transaction/Bitcoin build appears inferior from a Universal standpoint to an integrated Ripple platform. 
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251
FYI the digitalis server has started using usage tokens -- so you will not be able to transact on that server without first contacting knotwork and asking him to give some usage tokens to your Nym.

I suggest for testing purposes, you run the localhost server (or contact knotwork and get some usage tokens.)
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
I have a quarter of a bitcoin lost in a ripple/gateway transaction.  If I get it back I'm donating it to Open-Transactions.  I think ripple is great.  It's still a bit beta, but it works pretty well.  And I think it has a reasonable likelihood of adoption (I think its centralized nature will appeal to the establishment, and it has a bit of a marketing machine as it if a for profit company).  OT is so much better though.

I've made a number of attempts at getting OT running over the last 6 months.  The last time I was mostly successful, but still couldn't connect to the digitalis server.  I don't remember what the problem was.  I think I was unable to register a nym.  This is great news about federated servers, but at the moment I'd just like to see one or two running stably.
newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0


2. A p2p courier system to do anonymous bills exchange

To complete the bitcoin ATM home version, we need a p2p courier, that move the bills between diferents homes to adapt the exchanges between their p2p fiat accounts...


Nice, that made me think of this old thread : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitdrop-or-shadydeliverynetwork-a-non-robotic-courier-system-6279
member
Activity: 90
Merit: 10
Ok our big goal its to descentralize absolutely our alternative economic system.

we have bitcoin + opentransactions + bitmessage,

but i think that we need two more pieces to complete this alternative system, because the global power system its attacking
the form that we change dolars/euro/... to bitcoins; and the fiat as a virtual currency are always connected to a nominal bank account controlled by the central banks.

1. A home version of bitcoin ATM.

Yes, perhaps sounds crazy,, but if we want to change the world, we need to think also about this crazy possibilities. A system by the way people could diposit fiat currencies to exchange for bitcoins from their home. So, a really p2p alternative to the banking system.

I imagine a little atm machine  connect with your cumputer where you put your bills, in order to be changed in the p2p exchange. When fiat is exchanged for bitcoins,
the atm system, blocks your possibilities to get the bills.


2. A p2p courier system to do anonymous bills exchange

To complete the bitcoin ATM home version, we need a p2p courier, that move the bills between diferents homes to adapt the exchanges between their p2p fiat accounts...Perhaps a cryptografic system could link the courier with the home ATM in order to do segure transactions...


So, i mean... we need to pierce the anonymity and decentralization to the physical world!

If people are interested perhaps its possible to create another post about this questions!



sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251
This is a good point, and ultimately the answer will lie in what kind of information can be queried from SEPA and other banking APIs.
Yep. You might be interested in what we're discussing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.new#new

Looks great! I will definitely bookmark it.
sr. member
Activity: 469
Merit: 253
This is a good point, and ultimately the answer will lie in what kind of information can be queried from SEPA and other banking APIs.
Yep. You might be interested in what we're discussing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.new#new
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251
This is a good point, and ultimately the answer will lie in what kind of information can be queried from SEPA and other banking APIs.
sr. member
Activity: 469
Merit: 253
Quote from: waxwing
Quote
11. If Alice disputes (claiming the SEPA transfer was never received by Bob) then the escrow splits the silver grams between Alice and Jorg.
This is not a fair resolution method, is it? If the escrow has no way of knowing, then Alice is always incentivised to dispute.

Actually it was just an example. Since smart contracts in OT contain scripted clauses, this sort of logic is customizable. Therefore the market will be able to determine which contracts work best for which purposes. (And create the contracts they need.)

If it's completely impossible for Alice / Bob to verify whether a SEPA transfer has been successful, then reputation systems (I believe) will fill the gap. (Though I would think that Bob would have access to an API to verify whether he received the funds.)

For example, instead of routing your transfers through "any ole person" you might prefer to route them through a more trusted party, such as a "gateway" (to use the Ripple nomenclature) -- although in OT that would not be someone issuing credit, but rather, someone buying/selling coins or colored coins. Perhaps 'Jorg' is just one of such services. Also on OT, that Jorg will not be operating a server but rather, using one, just like any other user.

Perhaps someday soon, 'Jorg' will just be a bank himself.

Yes, I've thought about this stuff before. Reputation systems are good for lots of little transactions, but there is a subtle but important problem with this approach.

First, decentralization always breaks if the cornerstone of the system is trust in individuals/nodes/people. That's exactly how the banking system came about. People with more and more money, and more and more power, get more of the money and power because they're the only ones you trust to keep your money. People's trust concentrates in those "nodes". This is what we have to avoid in our P2P solution.

We need to make it so the trust is in the protocol itself. This requires public verifiability of transactions.

It's good that the contract is customisable, but if that ends up meaning that we only transact with trustworthy nodes, we get centralization.
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251
Quote from: waxwing
Quote
11. If Alice disputes (claiming the SEPA transfer was never received by Bob) then the escrow splits the silver grams between Alice and Jorg.
This is not a fair resolution method, is it? If the escrow has no way of knowing, then Alice is always incentivised to dispute.

Actually it was just an example. Since smart contracts in OT contain scripted clauses, this sort of logic is customizable. Therefore the market will be able to determine which contracts work best for which purposes. (And create the contracts they need.)

If it's completely impossible for Alice / Bob to verify whether a SEPA transfer has been successful, then reputation systems (I believe) will fill the gap. (Though I would think that Bob would have access to an API to verify whether he received the funds.)

For example, instead of routing your transfers through "any ole person" you might prefer to route them through a more trusted party, such as a "gateway" (to use the Ripple nomenclature) -- although in OT that would not be someone issuing credit, but rather, someone buying/selling coins or colored coins. Perhaps 'Jorg' is just one of such services. Also on OT, that Jorg will not be operating a server but rather, using one, just like any other user.

Perhaps someday soon, 'Jorg' will just be a bank himself.
sr. member
Activity: 469
Merit: 253
From that pastebin:

"9. Alice's Escrow awakens in 1-5 minutes, and starts periodically checking (via SEPA calls) to see if BOB_SEPA has received the Euros. If so, she automatically releases the Escrow to Jorg's silver account on OT."

This escrow must be able to check the banking transaction via SEPA calls, and I suppose without a formal contract with banks, he won't be able to listen to those calls

Just like a gateway in ripple, this is the point of weakness for all the P2P exchange design: That escrow/gateway must be able to communicate with banks through an authorized channel and that channel is controlled by banks

The core problem is, all of the exchanges today still operate inside a banking framework (the exchange must have a bank account to operate).

This.

And further,point 11 in the pastebin on silver/euro SEPA:
Quote
11. If Alice disputes (claiming the SEPA transfer was never received by Bob) then the escrow splits the silver grams between Alice and Jorg.

This is not a fair resolution method, is it? If the escrow has no way of knowing, then Alice is always incentivised to dispute.

Unless the bank wire is publically verifiable as well as irreversible, the fiat part of these exchange models always seems to be broken.

I believe dansmith has the essential elements of the solution in the discussion we've been having here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tlsnotary-cryptographic-proof-of-fiat-transfer-for-p2p-exchanges-173220

I'll give you the precis as that's a lot of reading. In case of dispute, the BUYER of fiat (not the seller) can be requested to run an open source plugin that reroutes their banking SSL session through a proxy (after they've logged in), the proxy can be the escrow agent or another user of the P2P software, the encrypted data is dumped and using the master key for the session, the data can be read such that it's verified that the fiat buyer did/did not receive the fiat funds (the fiat buyer only needs to show their bank statement for the period). Thus it can be made public knowledge whether the fiat was transferred or not.

Agree fully with oakpacific in that digital signatures, which would be trivial for banks to implement, on bank statements would immediately solve the problem. However banks are only using cryptography for the privacy functionality - they are not interested in non-repudiation of messages, even though it would be helpful to customers for a lot more than Bitcoin, it's not useful to them so they don't care. But I see that discussion as a tangent since we are not going to change bankers minds, we just have to get rid of their archaic system.
hero member
Activity: 503
Merit: 501
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
order in numbers
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
Actually I meant what I said.

Have you tried libertyreserve.com lately?

I never tried it.
Wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the link.
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251
Thanks! (Corrected in original post.)
member
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
It From Bit
For those asking for hand-holding....

Code:
git clone git://github.com/Fellow-Traveler/Open-Transactions


Just a correction for anyone who tries this, it should read
Code:
git clone git://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions.git

Very exciting stuff!
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251


--- I'm sure the recent victims of the Liberty Reserve heist, who just had all their money stolen

What Liberty Reserve heist? Couldn't find it with Google. You're not confusing it with Liberty Dollar, perhaps?



Actually I meant what I said.

Have you tried libertyreserve.com lately?
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004


--- I'm sure the recent victims of the Liberty Reserve heist, who just had all their money stolen

What Liberty Reserve heist? Couldn't find it with Google. You're not confusing it with Liberty Dollar, perhaps?

sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 251
For me a question that has probably either been already replied to above that I missed or maybe something those more familiar with colored coins have dealt with already:  The weakest link seems to me to be fiat represented by colored coin.  Are we talking for instance about a generic GBP colored coin, in which case the system is as strong as its least trustworthy issuer, or about branded coins. e.g. if Max Keiser were to agree to put his name to coloured coins and I were to take cash to his representative who took it from me to keep it locked away until redeemed it would mean the people I'm dealing with would need to deem KeiserCoins as dependable?  I'm not saying this is necessarily a weak link in comparison with what we have already but from what I understand it is likely the weakest link in the proposed solution as is.  Have I got the gist of this aspect of it right or have I misunderstood something?

You are correct that a colored coin issuer is the "weakest link." You do have to trust that the colored coin issuer will ultimately redeem those colored coins back for GBP again.

However…

--- The system described works without colored coins. You can use normal BTC. (There's no reason why you couldn't give a normal BTC to someone in return for legacy funds, instead of a colored coin.)

--- The main advantage of using colored coins is that it eliminates capital gains tax liability. (I'm not a lawyer and that's not legal advice. My point is that if you buy something for $100 and then sell it for $100, there is obviously no gain or loss.)

--- Also keep in mind that certain currencies require an issuer. For example, any gold-backed currency will need an issuer who stores that gold. Any Euro-backed currency will need an issuer who stores those Euros, etc.

--- And in the case of currencies that require an issuer, it's better to issue them first as colored coins, versus having the issuer create them directly on the OT server as IOUs. This is because it breaks the link between the issuer and the transaction server.

--- You see, if the gateway directly runs the server (Ripple) or if the issuer directly issues the currency as IOUs onto the server (OT can do this) then either way, pressure from authorities or criminals can be brought down onto the issuer, regarding that server. (Such as, "Shut that server down, or we'll shoot you!" or "Remove your IOUs from that server, or we'll shoot you!")

--- Whereas, if the issuer issues the currency first as colored coins, then the issuer cannot be held liable for those coins later being traded on various servers by various users. The issuer becomes totally divorced from the transaction servers. Just the same as the Federal Reserve being completely innocent of whatever their dollars are used for, once those dollars enter circulation beyond their reach.

--- Of course, the issuer still needs to provide bank wires in/out as a redemption of last resort, and he will need to follow KYC / AML for those wires, but as long as he does, most people will be able to get in/out of the system by buying/selling the colored coins from each other instead of having to go directly through the issuer. This is very powerful! Therefore I believe that colored coins are very important. Kudos to J.R. Willett!

--- This allows the issuer to operate legally, without any involvement in the operations of the servers themselves.

--- After that, I suggest using OT's basket currencies to distribute the risk of a single currency across multiple issuers, using jurisdictional arbitrage. For example, if there are 20 issuers in various jurisdictions who issue a GBP-based currency, we can combine those on OT into a single basket, such that no one is risking all their money with a single issuer.

--- I'm sure the recent victims of the Liberty Reserve heist, who just had all their money stolen, wish they had considered such possibilities, as I have been for the past few years.


PS.  .75 btc sent your way (1NtTPVVjDsUfDWybS4BwvHpG2pdS9RnYyQ) towards bringing this to fruition quicker.  Someone above suggested OpenCoinInc might try to buy this out too.  May I request if you do get an offer and are tempted that you first give the community the opportunity to crowdfund a competing bid?


This may sound surprising to you, but I was actually talking to at least one Rippler before they started that company. When I was originally approached, it was regarding business development for Open-Transactions, but later they started the Ripple company instead. I even sent them a document of all my intimate thoughts.

In fact, since they already got to read it, I might as well make that document available to the rest of you as well:

http://ft.vm.to/files/britto/FT-thoughts.pdf

Enjoy!

That is one of the reasons I am Ripple-positive: because my whole goal with OT was to inspire related development based on these concepts. Thus, I view them as one of my "children."

We are all working towards the same goals. May a million currencies bloom!

What stops the OT server issue colored coins for fiat out of thin air, i.e. not backed by fiat but as debt?

The OT server will not issue colored coins -- currency issuers will. These issuers will be entirely divorced from the transaction server, as described above.

Once a user uploads colored coins (or regular BTC) to an OT server, the coins will not actually be received by that server, but will be stored in a multi-sig voting pool, which prevents that server from having direct control over those coins. Even if the server disappears, the coins are still recoverable.

The transaction server is also incapable of forging receipts internally. As I have said previously, inflation is the only possible crime, but that is prevented through an auditing protocol.

I'm also wondering about the potential for list-service emailing which would allow for multiple recipients based on an opt-in (a proof-of-work opt-in mechanism which might allow them to join a list of recipients who have all agreed using a similar mechanism)?

This sounds like a question better posed to the author of Bitmessage (Atheros.) My own project is for transaction processing, not messaging.

Pages:
Jump to: