Topic: We need Cryptocurrency open standards and to promote modular software designs. (Read 2121 times)

i am in complete agreement with your view here that supporting cryptocurrencies as a whole is very important, rather than restricting attention to solely BTC. however, from a practical standpoint, the infrastructure does not yet exist to make this a reality. the devs i work with are building out some infrastructure that is, at the moment, BTC-specific but is intentionally built to be modular and straightforward to modify to support alternate cryptocurrencies. the project is called btcd and it consists of several standalone packages written in Go.

have a look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192880.0;all to see the history of it on this subforum and you can tinker with the 2 packages we have already released on github, btcwire and btcjson, https://github.com/conformal.

since the btcd code is built with modularity in mind from the outset, it likely rather trivial to add support for other cryptocurrencies so long as they are relatively close to BTC in structure, e.g. LTC drops the double sha256 and uses scrypt for PoW function and a new block is created every 2.5 minutes instead of every 10 minutes.

I know what Bitcoin is. I've known about cryptocurrencies theoretically since before there was a Bitcoin. I did not get interested in "Bitcoin" but in cryptocurrencies in general. I don't believe Bitcoin is the end but it's just the beginning. So no I don't want Bitcoin to be like HTTP/TCPIP because if you know enough about HTTP or TCPIP then you know neither of those implementations were perfected and as a result now we have many extensions and new protocols. My opinion is the standard protocol itself should not be based around a single product but should be designed so that whatever the next big thing is can easily be implemented. It should not be hard to switch away from Bitcoin when the time comes where we may have to do that and according to my understanding of this technology that time is going to come a lot sooner than people here seem to think.

I don't buy that my ideas are before it's time or not ripe. I would have said the same thing before there was a Bitcoin. The Bitcoin protocol itself is fairly new but the idea of cryptocurrencies is not new, especially among the cypherpunk crowd.

What I'm saying is that Bitcoin should have competition in a free market. I like Bitcoin, it's a well designed protocol, but it's not perfection. It also does not fit into every possible niche market and also it's once again the problem of centralization. When Bitcoin is the center of the cryptocurrency galaxy then any bad press toward Bitcoin affects all altcoins. When Bitcoin has competition then bad press for Bitcoin will not completely destroy all cryptocurrency. We used to just have Napster at one point in time, remember that?

I'm not sure what you're talking about "Bitcoin makes different people rich" because no it doesn't actually. People right now are mining altcoins to trade for Bitcoins and a lot of people who have a lot of Bitcoins are also mining altcoins. I do see your point that altcoins can make more people rich or late adopters rich but I don't see what is wrong people getting rich just so long as the technology is advanced in the process.

Please elaborate more on this argument because it's not making much sense as to why you think it's bad and I'm not sure if you're talking about the unique network effect of Bitcoin making people rich or something else.
I've been studying cryptocurrencies, cryptography, and the ideas around Bitcoin since before there was a Bitcoin. So I came into it from the position of someone who originally saw it as an interesting technological development so I kept my eye on it. Then when I saw it reach $30 back in 2011 and crash down to less than $2 I saw it as a business opportunity because I knew at that moment it would never be $2 a Bitcoin again because I understood how valuable it was. So then I got attracted to it as an investment opportunity, and then finally I see it has political dimensions to free us from the bank but I always understood that and thought that it wouldn't work. I still don't see it taking down the federal reserve or the banks, but I do see it offering people a different choice and I think that choice is extremely valuable. For the same reason we need altcoins to offer even more choices provided that the technology behind cryptocurrencies are advanced.

If I understand your argument then you and others are concerned that an over abundance of altcoins can create hyperinflation of cryptocurrencies. I've actually addressed that in other postings on the forum and I see that too as a problem and I'm not saying to take the worst pump and dump coins and adopt them but there are some technologies that do things Bitcoins simply cannot do. PPcoin if it works will be able to do some things Bitcoins can't do, Namecoins can do things Bitcoins can't do, and there will be other coins which come along which have technological advantages over Bitcoin and it makes no sense to have to design the infrastructure for Bitcoin right now and then have to redesign everything all over again for whatever ultimately comes after Bitcoin. I don't think Litecoin is all that innovative but it's gaining support regardless, and I think PPcoin is more innovative but isn't gaining much support. All I'm saying is the users and merchants should ultimately decide which coin is most useful to them and the infrastructure has to allow for them to make that choice otherwise how it is much different from the centralized banking not letting people have choices?


You're not giving any detailed reason why Bitcoin isn't a technical invention that needs to be optimized and popularized. I do understand the social context, but you haven't made a good enough case against technological innovation.


I don't view it like that. I am not assuming every new protocol will be based on Bitcoin. I'm not assuming every single Bitcoin clone will be embraced. But we do need to continuously try to make a new thing because from a cultural point of view it's good for a community to have. I also don't think Bitcoin is anywhere near as good as it could be, just as I don't think cryptocurrencies aren't as mature as they could be. Basically I see Bitcoin as having a shelf life, maybe 15-20 years before it's obsolete by technology standards and I think it's critically important to have a culture of innovation and always push the new technology.

I do agree with you that hyperinflation may be an issue if too many cryptocurrencies are released too fast but I don't believe that each cryptocurrency will appeal to the same demographics. I don't believe the market is so small that only Bitcoin can succeed. I think Bitcoin is in a huge ocean where it's never going to be able to fill the demands of billions of people. There has to be many different altcoins each with different technologies to meet the demands of billions of people to bring acceptance to cryptocurrency as a technology.

Curecoin for example is an altcoin which could greatly benefit all cryptocurrencies. We need more coins like that to combat the negative media attention caused by Bitcoin. When people say it's a good thing that Bitcoin is popular among libertarians I would say if the only place people hear about cryptocurrencies is from libertarians, or on Alex Jones, and if it's never discussed on Oprah or on more mainstream channels then it's never going to get to be as big as it could be. These altcoins will make the overall market cap for cryptocurrencies bigger than if it were just Bitcoin alone. That is my argument, and the only reason inflation could be a problem is because in the last month we've had hundreds of clones come out which aren't actively developed and which are just based on marketing. Litecoin was just based on marketing but at least it is actively maintained.

Curecoin or coins which can do protein folding as Proof of Work are technologically superior to Bitcoin in a way. I should have the choice to mine Curecoins and to use those coins to shop with at any merchant that accepts Bitcoin. Tell me why I shouldn't be able to? Yes I do think there should be a quality standard, but it should be easy for a merchant to accept any coin.

'Bitcoin' as defined from the very beginning is the BTC-based blockchain and network with a genesis block of hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f. Blockchains with different genesis blocks have always been given other names, like "Testnet", including by the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. You're creating your own definition of 'Bitcoin' to unfairly take a swing at the BTC community for not supporting your vision of limitless cryptocoin supply and zero value.

The point of currency is to store value, so that it can be transmitted not just through space, but through time. The correct definition of a bitcoin as a coin which exists in the first blockchain is not only the definition as originally conceived, it is the definition that enables it to store value and function as a currency.


The 2.1 quadrillion Satoshi limit being enforced at the protocol level is about as clear an expression of an ideal as possible.

You seem to not understand enough of both Bitcoin technology itself and the social framework which shapes it.

(i) you've made a mention of "altcoin"s without mentioning "alt-Bitcoin"s. Bitcoin as a mathematical system creates a class of isomorphic cryptocurrencies. There is between 2¹⁶⁰ and 2²⁵⁶ (the exact number is immaterial, it is a large number comparable to the number of atoms in the whole planet) of them, each of those systems self-limited to 21*10⁶ units.

Although all those iso-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies are mathematically equivalent, the regular Bitcoin supporters will claim that only the coin anchored at 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f is a true-Bitcoin, all others being false-Bitcoins. This is mathematically false, but socially true. The prime socially-differentiating factor is that the ...8ce26f iso-Bitcoin makes different people rich than all other iso-Bitcoins that can be started in the future with a different anchor and different people getting rich while mining them. This has nothing to do with the "altcoin"s that are not isomorphic to the Bitcoin system and discussed on the "alternate currency" subforum.

(ii) you seem to belong in the minority that takes the Bitcoin ideals on the face value, whereas the majority of Bitcoin supporters are there in hope of increasing their wealth in the legacy currencies or just for the opportunity to kill some bankers. To make a simple analogy with the historical events: you are one of the rare persons who took "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" at the face value, whereas bulk of the French Revolutionaries was there because it gave them opportunity to kill priests and expropriate anyone they didn't liked.

In summary I think you seem to consider Bitcoin like any other technical invention that needs to be optimized and popularized. It is mostly true, but far from being true in the deeper details and in the social context. While I admire your proposal I'm going to put it next to the books about the adventures of Pollyanna.

Apple is a closed source company, not an open source protocol.

BTC should be like TCP/IP and HTTP: the common protocol for a global network, in this case the currency network. Having parallel BTC-based networks and blockchains is like having parallel internets: it's pointless as it fragments the network without adding any thing new (other than a new name, and maybe a new block time, which are only superficial innovations).


How do you know it wouldn't be hyper inflation? If the BTC community promotes an infinite number of blockchains, then why wouldn't the market become increasingly fragmented? Just as you're free to promote your BTC-alt protocols and create software for them, others are free to ignore them and not expend the extra resources in order to make software compatible for them.

So what you're saying is that Apple should have been the only operating system and PC available because it was first and having an open PC based system can confuse users?

I disagree. I want open standards for all cryptocurrencies. It's bigger than BTC now. My wallet should work with any cryptocurrency I choose to use in it. My software should accept any altcoin. Why shouldn't we segment the market just to give Bitcoin an unfair advantage?

By the way it wouldn't be hyper inflation. Just because my wallet accepts any cryptocurrency it doesn't mean every merchant will or ever person will. You'd always be free to say you only accept Bitcoins but the wallet technology itself shouldn't be free to decide for us.

The standard we should be promoting is the BTC protocol. We don't need multiple BTC-based protocols. The argument for multiple BTC-based blockchains/networks rests on the premise that more coins is not harmful to cryptocurrency adoption, but more coins means each coin has less value, so adoption of an unlimited number of BTC-based blockchains would mean hyperinflation.

We might as well get rid of the 2.1 quadrillion Satoshi limit and abandon the idea that scarcity makes an asset effective at storing value if we're going to promote the adoption of an ever increasing number of blockchains, all providing the same currency function.

It's too early to make sense?
I don't understand.

Too early for all that. What you propose makes sense, but you are simply ahead of your time. People need to grow into the concepts involved and as of now your ideas aren't yet ripe.

The main problem I'm seeing which could hurt or slow the adoption of Cryptocurrencies is the insistence in developing exclusively for Bitcoin as a platform or protocol instead of developing standards for Cryptocurrencies.

What I mean is all the various wallets, all the various tools offering Bitcoin support, all the businesses developing ATM machines, all the businesses developing debit cards, all the businesses and programmers seem to be focused on a specific coin (Bitcoin) instead of a more general focus on cryptocurrencies as a technology.

This in my opinion is going to be a huge flaw in the future. It's similar to the flaw of designing to a specific web technology instead of to an agreed upon standard and then we cannot update the web without breaking a bunch of old websites. We need to develop for the agreed upon standard and design software to be modular so that any protocol can be plugged in.

A wallet should be designed to have the coin choice as a plugin. It can start with Bitcoin as the main plugin, but the Litecoin, PPcoin, Namecoin, any coin should be able to work in that wallet as a plugin. Instead we have people having to write wallets over and over again. What we need to agree upon is a standardized Cryptocurrency wallet design specification for example. Mozilla had to rebuild the browser by bringing in the idea of extensions to increase functionality. In the case of Bitcoins or Cryptocurrencies in general we are still designing the software to be some niche product instead of designing it like it's going to be part of the web itself. As a result you could end up with a situation like where multiple different video players like Real Player vs Adobe Flash and users having to download both, or the same problems we had when sites having to be designed to work in IE or in Netscape/Mozilla. We can't make these mistakes again, designs have to be modular and we probably will have to set up a for profit organization to pay highly skilled programmers to develop some professional quality infrastructure, API's, libraries, classes, functions, etc.

Mozilla used the Foundation model and this can work. The corporate model also works because QT follows that model.