Topic: The Official Mastercoin Foundation, Master Protocol & Mastercoin Thread - page 21. (Read 165310 times)

Nice work.

Quite astute, sir.

Congrats to you！Thanks .

Do I have this right? If so let's let the idea sit for a second: the Tether project basically consolidates all KYC/AML requirements of crypto businesses that desire to work in USD to one place

Three big cheers for the team!!!  Way to go Craig.  Keep up the good work.

Omni rules.

Thanks, guys!  It’s been a long hard road, but we’re excited to have Tether live on the largest US Dollar digital currency exchange in the world! 

For those who missed it, Bitfinex is running Omni Core and has enabled US Dollar balances to be withdrawn as Tether on the blockchain Omni layer:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tether-introduces-real-world-currency-160000085.html

More announcements are coming for both Tether and Omni, and I sincerely appreciate the community’s commentary, enthusiasm, support and patience for the past few months while we made Omni Core strong enough for the big players.

Another big one today was HOPE Gold - who now have 5 metric tons of gold backing their charitable trust & coin:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/comstock-mining-inc-licenses-mineral-130100342.html

Factom and LaZooz coming soon, too.  All on Omni.

And y’all thought Mastercoin was dead.    If Mastercoin is dead, then long live Omni.

Round of applause for the team, please - they’ve done an amazing job.

Craig

I see a pleasantly surprising announcement while signing on BFX today
Congrats to ya Craig & co.!

https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/announcements/?id=31

Where is Jr wife?


Jr wife are selling now?

WHO?
can you figure out? the dev selling now?

This is where P2SH/multisig comes into play. Let's say there is a service provider and a customer. When opening a new account (...), three keys are created:

• A) the customer's very private key
• B) the customer's other key
• C) and a key held by the service provider

A script can be created such that tokens or coins are spendable, if:

• the customer signs with key A
• or the service provider and the customer sign with key B and key C

The later would serve as fail safe for the exceptional case where the customer loses access to his key A, while at no point there is risk that the service provider escalates its privileges.

@littleblue have some respect, please.  Sometimes the reasons why some people sell their earnings is because they have to.  Kids, rent, food, etc.  Sitting there laughing about it ignores that fact that their need outweighed the knowledge that it could adversely effect the market, and the holdings of the people they’ve been working with - which can’t ever be an easy decision.  So please, don’t be a jackass.

Craig

Too bad some MSC dev decided to dump hes DEVMSC lol! again!

I mostly concentrate on guiding the evolution of our specification (https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec). I also talk a lot to people interested in using our platform (we have more than ever before).

Perhaps the biggest "trial" for Mastercoin/Omni was the first few months when I tried to hold down a dayjob while running everything. I think it's fair to say that a couple early blunders could have been avoided if my time had not been split. Now other people are making those kinds of decisions, so my mistakes have far smaller impact

finally hear Jr again in new year,
hope you can work well for the project.

Hi JR,

Its good to see that monkey avatar around here again. After reading Craigs updates, 2015 seems like it is going to be an exciting year for omni.

Even if the project doesn't require you, I guess we don't really know what you do. Would it be possible to give us an overview of what you do do?

Would it also be possible, if not to much trouble, to give us a summary of the journey so far of the development of msc and the move towards brand omni. (The trials and tribulations of msc/omni)

Thanks

OMNI === MSC; Mastercoin has been renamed to Omni. No new tokens are getting a piece of the pie.

Thanks for the update JR.

I think the real concern amongst MSC investors who want to see the tech succeed, but also gain from being an early source of financing for Bitcoin 2.0, is what is the future of MSC? Omni is a promising product, but hearing about factoids (and maybe other tokens) makes the MSC investor wonder whether MSC is playing any further part in the Omni plans.

Thanks for posting. see ya next year 

It seems like once a week I see a "where is J.R." question somewhere.

Every time I poke my head in here I try to emphasize - it doesn't MATTER where I am. I could be dead, and project would see very little impact. I participate in many ways, but we have so many smart people my presence is no longer critical to the success of the project.

People who keep asking where I am don't seem to be getting that message. What matters is the state of the project, not where J.R. is. I would argue that Satoshi's disappearance helped bitcoin more than hurt it. Too bad everybody knows my real name, or I could mysteriously disappear too!

The stuff with Counterparty is very . . . interesting. I didn't see it coming, but the distancing makes sense. It's too early to bet entirely on one horse (unless you are crazy like me). I doubt they are severing their relationship, but they probably did some more research and saw that there are a lot of projects which have a shot at becoming the next big thing, and didn't want to limit their options going forward.

Regarding the interest from the conversations had with prospective issuers - a lot of these groups are relying on confidentiality so that they can be in control of their own PR, and that’s something we have to respect.  The end result may be that we don’t share good news until the issuer goes public with it, which sometimes ends up with the community wondering what’s going on the in background.  I don’t know of a good way to rectify this, but I can tell you that many of the conversations are exciting (some of the issuers have some pretty cool blockchain-related tech in the works, and we’re honored to be able to assist).  Tether, Factom, LaZooz, CryptoNext and HOPE Gold are the next big ones coming (already publicly announced), followed by a few that blew my mind that will be public in the weeks to come.

I can’t speak to Overstock’s plans, but I’m not too worried about the outcome with a launched Medici.  In the same sense that the Medici project can take whatever it wishes from open source projects (and end up closed source, from what I understand), any benefits or innovations created (and subsequently published on the blockchain) will be quickly inherited by open source platforms as well - assuming they provide some advantage over features already in production.

However, many of the “features” that Medici will likely require to become “fully compliant” (as described by Patrick Byrne in recent interviews) would be likely antithetical to those familiar with many of the benefits of cryptocurrency, such as: arbitrary callability and/or re-issuance (or outright “deletion”) of existing assets (those held in an address not controlled by the issuer), reversibility of transactions, blacklist/whitelist address tagging, etc.  It is too early to say whether these kinds of “features” being added to a cryptographic ledger-based token will be deemed “acceptable” by the current users, but they may be - and only time will tell.

Here’s an example: issuer A creates an asset on the blockchain.  Buyer B purchases the asset, and sells it to bad actor C (not necessarily knowing that C is a bad actor).  Bad actor C sells it to unknowing buyer D (let’s assume all of these exchanges occur fully decentralized).  Regulator steps in and seizes the funds from Actor C, and requires the issuer to revoke the asset from buyer D’s address.  If this is a common occurrence, why would buyers B and D ever purchase something on a decentralized exchange if the possibility of it being revoked outside of their control is possible?

There is a very fine line here - where do we draw the boundary for what an issuer can and cannot do with the assets created?  If I purchase an asset, and then lose the key to my address where it is stored, depending on what securities regulation exists, I should be able to get a new asset from the issuer.  But if I cannot prove I own that address (can’t sign with a key I’ve lost), what guarantees can I give the issuer that the asset was in fact lost?  If the asset issuer could “invalidate” the tokens in that address with a lost key, they must have the ability to invalidate the asset in *any* address.  It might be the guy I just sold it to, and I never lost the key at all.

I saw Patrick’s comments about the relationship with Counterparty, and it left me with some open questions, for sure.  For now, we’re not focusing on the idea of “securities” on the blockchain - we’re focusing on providing the benefits of a cryptographic ledger to the transfer of other-than-bitcoin assets on the Bitcoin blockchain.  We firmly believe that the features available to cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies should be leveraged and improved, not watered down.  What’s the point in creating a decentralized algorithmic smart contract platform that does not require trust if you’re just going to allow the issuer to arbitrarily undo or negate those contracts?

Craig