swedish bitcoin founder
I have reached similar conclusions about Msc ultimate reliability, coin stay away from msc. Bound by borders, the benefits are assigned by borders in an increasingly borderless economy. I still believe it has actual utility, I'm not interested in any surety price. Bitcointalk see it as a tapeworm inside Bitcoin's body. Software is not perfect. Examination period master, 8: Surety, no offense bitcointalk colored coins, but I honestly only want client-side master to deal directly with Bitcoin, no layers are necessary in coin opinion.
buy bitcoins uk sms advertising В»
buy bitcoin with amazon gift card
There is both code: The Mastercoin Foundation doesn't run any of these services nor will it in the future any more than the Bitcoin Foundation runs Bitcoin businesses or controls the Bitcoin protocol. Well, maybe not the same thing, as I hired freelancers, but the effect is the same. By using the MSC to send value you are supporting the developers building that feature. There is a fixed number of slots and every user who enters into the slot before all the slots are filled will get an equal share of the profit generated. Do not post your Bitcoin address unless someone explicitly asks you to. Though the "string bling" system may have only a handful of users interested in it, an attacker attempting to change the state of the consensus of what strings have what bling would need to attack the Bitcoin blockchain directly - a signififantly harder problem.
contente bitcoin exchange
I'm guessing this account is surety another sock puppet of Mr. It also allows for a group or community to own a bitcointalk of devices and receive a dividend when those master are used. Thank you for posting this. Its members are just pseudonymous forum users. This is a sustainable way to compensate developers coin build new advanced features msc all of us in the Bitcoin community want.
обмен litecoin на рубли »
Master coin msc bitcointalk surety
The technological solution has all of these pros. The benefit of decentralization is that it cannot be shut down. If we look at a government solution then when the politicians win or lose an election or when they are just in a bad mood they can decide to make irrational changes which can hurt the economic security of people who exclusively depend on them to always make the right decisions.
The technological solution does not have this problem and while it should not act not as a replacement it can act as an axillary solution to provide the same services when the political solution fails due to human nature, human error, or corruption. By providing a technological solution we remove a possible point of failure and can help secure the economic fate of individuals depending exclusively on the political solution not failing. Additionally the technological solution can reduce the costs of the political solution.
If for instance Peer to Peer health insurance could someday compete with traditional health insurance then we could reduce the cost of the Affordable Care Act because Peer to Peer health insurance could be cheaper and equally effective. If we can provide in a decentralized manner something essential like food vouchers then we do not need to use the government for this purpose. This violates the privacy of the user who may not want it to be known that they receive food stamps.
In this case the technological solution would be pseudo-anonymous and completely private while also capable of providing digital food vouchers backed by farmers willing to accept them.
In a pseudo-anonymous environment there will be no expensive drug tests Price, and no political litmus tests. Every participant in the technological solution should receive equal benefits in a pseudo-anonymous privacy enhanced manner. Because the political solution requires an identity it creates a risk of identity theft. Identity theft has a cost associated with it.
The technological solution is much more secure by design and because it is Peer to Peer it can be global from the start which bypasses all the political nonsense associated with political solutions. It only requires a public key and that means identity need not be stored on centralized servers within databases. This also means your private information cannot be sold or traded around. Medical records can also be more secure because they too could be under a pseudo-nym.
A summary of the risks associated with dependency on the political solution. The risk of human error, human failure, or simple mood changes among politicians. The risk of unsustainability due to a possible unexpected increase in cost or less tax revenue. The risk of identity theft, public scorn, or political persecution due to the lack of privacy. Bound by borders, the benefits are assigned by borders in an increasingly borderless economy. Change happens slowly, incrementally, and may be unable to keep pace with technological change.
And it would distribute the benefits of rapid economic growth to all. Everyone would become a capitalist. Everyone would own a share of the means of production. All of the problems associated with the political solution can be solved by providing a technologically enhanced distributed basic dividend.
To provide a basic dividend we must leverage intelligent machines and to leverage intelligent machines we must promote decentralization of ownership of the intelligent machines. One of the most important ways of bootstrapping or kick starting the process of development of these solutions is through the utilization of crowd funding.
One successful way of doing that is to simply have an address designated as the exodus or angel address which is to be utilized as the crowd funding destination address. Anyone can send any cryptocurrency or cryptoasset they have to this address as part of the distributed fund raising campaign. A possible result of the decentralized crowd funding process is the decentralized distribution of ownership in crypto-assets.
These crypto-assets can be treated like capital assets. Each wallet should have a savings address and a shopping or checking address.
The purpose of this savings address is to send a specific amount of currency to the spending address at a rate which simulates a salary. So the idea is that you can set your own annual salary in your national currency to be sent from this savings address to whichever addresses are randomly chosen from your checking address.
The necessity of this is to allow people to stretch their money over their lifetime because the majority of future incomes will come from investments rather than from what we today call jobs. Money which comes from investments may come in huge sums very fast and then trickle down to a crawl pace.
This happens because typically there is an exponential growth period and then a period from which an investment profit tapers off.
Proof of Stake allows for a dividend to be paid to every owner of the currency. Transaction fees would generate that dividend. The problem with this would be that the people who hold the most would get the most so Proof of Stake is not necessarily the most fair mechanism of distributing a flat dividend.
Another variation on the example would be to set it up so the subsidy goes to every owner of a specific key. This way with the public key of each user you could now distribute the dividend on a per public key basis and through this mechanism you could actually give an equal proportion of the dividend to every owner. This actually would work about as well as the government tax and spend model we have now with the transaction fee going to every non-anonymous user of the currency and as a side effect it would also encourage every user of the currency to have a permanent pseudo-anonymous identity.
A combination such as the above example which combines cutting edge technology in a decentralized and private manner would work even better. So for instance you have your cryptocurrency wallet with whatever currency unit amount in it. You have a public key which allows for one specific identity to claim ownership of that specific wallet. If that wallet passes a certain threshold amount then it meets the minimum threshold to receive the dividend.
Their public key is then connected to dividend paying shares which uses private sector mechanisms to pay dividends based on transaction fees to every shareholder. Types of dividends there may be more types, feel free to give input here. For dividend types you have flat static dividends, flat dynamic dividends, hierarchical static dividends and hierarchical dynamic dividends. To further define them we can assign it as:. A flat static dividend is a fixed percentage of profit within a profit sharing contract which every owner receives an equal portion of.
There is no economic hierarchy so there is no accusations of it being a pyramid scheme which benefits early adopters more than late adopters. There is a fixed number of slots and every user who enters into the slot before all the slots are filled will get an equal share of the profit generated. There are a fixed number of slots to be filled and every user who takes a slot or a seat at the round table before the seats are filled will be an equal.
If they vote to raise their percentage of profit to go to the dividend they can or they can vote to lower it but everyone gets a vote and the percentage is equal for every owner. A hierarchical static dividend is a dividend which pays a fixed percentage according to where you are sitting in an audience. The early bird gets the worm in this case and is richly rewarded for doing so. This mechanism can sometimes be viewed as a pyramid scheme or mistakenly viewed as a Ponzi scheme but in certain scenarios where you want risk takers to be rewarded then being early can matter.
In this case all the risk takers will get a fixed percentage of the profit forever. A hierarchical dynamic dividend is a dividend which pays a dynamic percentage of the profit which can change over time through something like Proof of Stake voting.
Proof of Stake allows a software protocol to determine who has the greatest stake and then allow them to vote on what percentage of the profit should go to dividends. This is good in some ways but it opens the ownership up to the accusation of being greedy. But there are different kinds of transactions. But Bitcoin for the most part utilizes the same transaction fee indiscriminate of the transaction type and it is up for debate whether or not this fixed fee will be sustainable once mining revenue decreases as no new coins are generated GodIsLove, Types of transaction fees there may be more types, seeking input here.
Type A transaction fees: Type B transaction fees: Type C transaction fees: This is a problem because Bitcoin is marketing itself as having lower transaction fees than Western Union. The Bitcoin protocol is designed so that after the 21 million Bitcoins are produced the mining is to be subsidized by transaction fees. The problem is that these transaction fees are voluntary, and all transactions are treated as equal.
Mining on the other hand is not cheap and currently is not profitable for the majority of human miners system administrators who had to purchase ASICs but due to seemingly exponential rising of difficulty are unable to recoup their investment. While the virtual worker does not care the human being has bills to pay and when the return on investment does not exist or is too low the human being will find something else to do.
It is known that the Type A transaction fee model cannot scale and is not sustainable. Type B and Type C transaction fee models are sustainable. Attraction by incentive rather than coercive force Incentive-centered design protocol. The political solutions typically rely on one group trying to force a behavioral pattern on another group.
Taxes are not voluntary and require a Robin Hood strategy. Taxes are also seen as a punishment rather than a reward and the more money you make the higher the tax. Transaction fees are essentially a tax on the use of the Bitcoin network and that tax is used to subsidize mining. As a result of this it is necessary under the Proof of Work scheme to pay the tax to the network of miners who process transactions and generate new coins because over time there will be less and less coins to generate and mining itself will become unprofitable.
The purpose of an incentive-centered design protocol is to encourage by incentives rather than to adopt the political method of threatening with jail time. The use of a social contract can be encouraged by cultural norms, incentives, and the human need to want to be a part of a community.
To be a part of a community also means to give back to that community. The incentive-centered design protocol should be built into the design of the social contract, the software, the design of every aspect so that every individual member can be richly rewarded for their efforts while at the same time become a benefit whichever virtual community or set of virtual communities he or she agrees with.
Artificial lifeforms otherwise known as a-life can be useful to describe the concept of mining. The artificial workers in the Bitcoin Proof of Work for instance are computational processes which are simulating the role of a gold miner. Just as you can have artificial lifeforms which simulate the role of a gold miner, you can also have artificial lifeforms which can simulate the role of any other kind of laborer.
The Proof of Work protocol is designed so that the artificial miner virtual lifeforms are presented with problems in the form of puzzles which must be solved. These puzzles are cryptographic hashes which become progressively more difficult to solve as more virtual workers join in the effort to solve it. It acts in this way because it is designed to mimic the behavior of precious metals such as gold and is modelled in such a way to limit the inflation rate to a predictable rate and cap the overall amount at approximately 21 million Bitcoin units.
So in the case of Bitcoin we have a protocol which models itself after nature to produce precious numbers and which uses the principles of artificial life or a-life to design an precisely defined unit of account architecture.
This architecture is now in the process of being extended further with the concept of colored coins which can mark or tag every single Satoshi.
A Bitcoin is approximately ,, Satoshi and there are 21 million Bitcoins. What must be remembered here is that Bitcoin is not best defined as a currency but as a distributed protocol which acts as a public ledger modeled after a currency.
Modeling of natural and unnatural structures to leverage artificial life Biomimicry. The use of colored coin conceptual metaphor can allow for the Satoshi to become a stock, a bond, anything. The UTXO space is where bitcoin nodes store the set of unspent outputs.
This data structure needs to be fast because of how essential it is for Bitcoin to function. Space in the UTXO is very limited because of this - it's fine for Bitcoin's needs, but because Mastercoin abused it by storing its data there in fake unspent transactions, it would essentially grow enormously if this form of Mastercoin ever became popular.
To protect against this highly damaging, anti-social behavior, Gavin has implemented support for flagging fake outputs so they can be excluded from UTXO, and Mastercoin is using this feature now, so it can't do as much damage to Bitcoin. Note this flagging feature has not been released yet, so we're lucky that Mastercoin isn't going anywhere. So that's essentially a bitcoin vulnerability, you spam UTXO with lots of unspent outputs fake or otherwise and everybodies transactions come to a screeching halt, that is, until the flagging is introduced?
It takes a lot to spam transactions, because fees literally make it expensive. Mastercoin was set to become a global organization dedicated to performing this spamming by using crowdfunding from people incentivized by profit. You could look at that as a vulnerability, but it's a strange one because it requires the consent of so many - you're essentially promised money for destroying Bitcoin.
After the flagging feature this consent will be much harder to generate [1], and also the more important Bitcoin becomes, the less incentivized people will be to destroy it. The Mastercoin project might seem like they were evil, but in all honesty I think they have other motives than destroying Bitcoin.
Without question, there needed to be an official way to store small amounts of data along with transactions. There are many vulnerabilities you can't even think of.
Bitcoin is still Beta For example 1MB block size is a DDoS vulnerability, it's easy to run malicious nodes and send dust in huge amounts. It is laudable to offer constructive criticism against your own self interest. That is a trait of a real scientist. I've looked at altcoins and they mostly scream clones trying to cash in on bitcoin's success while offering nothing significantly new.
The only ones that looked interesting to me from a superficial investigation were -. I almost immediately lost interest in peercoin perhaps unfairly when I was approached to pimp it on forums, comments, social media etc within days of joining a peercoin forum.
I will still take a closer look at what it is that they're doing when I have the time but I'll keep your analysis and your comments in mind. Sure, good causes and products need publicity but if you're focusing on marketing before you actually have the technology I'm very wary. Don't forget about primecoin provides a more dynamic difficulty and zerocoin complete anonymity. See what Mike said about it: Mastercoin isn't really an altcoin like the others.
It's "send a bunch of money to this address I control, and eventually I'll give a little back and tell you how you can use it like colored coins but insecurely".
If you sent 1 btc to the exodus address you could sell it for btc today. Wish I had, I would be holding btc and 0 msc. A lot of people can make money from ponzi schemes too, but it doesn't make the scheme more right. They did a massive PR campaign for a product that wasn't available or ready, entrepreneurship , don't sell something you don't have.
Willett is actually the most learned and effective concern troll in all of bitcoin. And quite a bit of his stuff is absolutely worth reading and thinking about. That said, Mastercoin just ain't a happening thing. As I recall, doesn't it involve black-holing bitcoin? I dunno - it's not worth looking up again.
Maybe that was Ripple. Well, do what you like with yours, but I think I'll hang on to mine and keep using them. Ripple decided to completely destroy their currency XRP for transactions from the beginning on, Mastercoin wanted to blackhole them but as far as I heard they "fixed" it now to something that doesn't completely spam the UTXO set, maybe miner fees or something like that This is a really important update from Gavin.
The coins sent into the "Exodus Address" are not black-holed or destroyed in any way. Willet holds the private keys and always has. This is nothing but a money grab by him that exploited people's greed. He kept posting things like "just throw a few coins in to make sure you get in on the next big thing ". He set a deadline you had to send them in by.
He barely had a script set up to send coins at all when that deadline passed. And the whole project is still junk months later color me not surprised. Actually, I don't think Willett is trying to put a 'money grab' over. That is to say; I don't question his character. The system plods along in a logically rational fashion - one point inexorably leading to the next. Listen to what Mike Hearn had to say about Mastercoin: The best part isn't in the parent post - they intend to have a web "API" that verifies transactions.
Yep, can you say "centralized"? It will end in tears, of course. And I didn't even touch upon the whole centralized failure that the "escrow" fund is going to be. If the lead dev gets hit by a bus, there goes your "peg", because something tells me a person making these kinds of mistakes doesn't even have a disaster recovery plan.
Run, don't walk - away from anything implemented on top of this disaster. You'll be glad later you did. I'm amazed that a system this centralized became popular to bitcoin users.
Did people forget what made bitcoin revolutionary? I was under the impression that anyone would be able to run that verify server which includes a web API allowing easy sharing of this information. Riddle me this, then.
I want to create some transactions that seem "verified". I can't wait until they release that implementation - I'll have to have a go at making my own Disastercoin millions. Communication with multiple servers at once to compare results would make it very difficult for a single actor to fool someone. Seems like someone is trying awfully hard to justify the many different pieces of this "protocol". More stuff is better? Do you actually have any more actual information regarding mastercoin problems, or are you just blindly hating?
Apart from the name telling everything you need to know about the ambition of the creator - the rest of the bunch are very publicly anti Bitcoin devs and the foundation. Mind you I loved the public call out from Mike Hearn at the Amsterdam conf. Check it out on youtube. I respect Mike Hearn a lot.
Though the criticism he levels is basically that the project is early stage, it has a lot of work to prove itself via real code, and that he hopes the money is managed properly. I think those are all fair points, and all true. The protocol is early stage, the code is early stage, and the money does need to be managed well.
I don't think that equals that the Mastercoin project shouldn't develop the spec as best it can, develop the code as best it can, and have complete transparency about how funds are used. He said that there's a bunch of assumptions in the whitepaper on how things would work, but that these things would be very hard to implement.
Imagine someone in saying "Oh, and then distributed network will automatically prevent double spend. You guys were selling equity in an idea that hasn't been implemented yet, and you aren't sure can even be implemented. Firstly, tokens in an application are not "equity". There is no Mastercoin company, no employees, no stock, no profits, no dividends, no incorporation. Its an open source protocol and open source project.
Secondly, what you just described could be said about any startup ever, you have an idea, you gain supporters to fund its development and then you code up the best implementation you can. Actually, I didn't think of this point - but you're right.
His solicitation for funds directly implied making it "big" was the result. I've seen this before elsewhere, in penny stock trading forums. And no, the SEC doesn't like that at all. Exactly what section is this a violation of? I looked and couldn't find anything. Unless you're talking about the common law definition of an "investment contract?
Willet hasn't hired a lawyer so he has no fucking idea whether it is legal or not. He's happy enough taking everyone's money without doing his due diligence though and he actually solicited investments before any script even tracking mastercoins was released. Then he has nothing to worry about, does he? I'm sure all his advertising revenue and paying people to spread the word have zero to do with his continual "don't miss out on the big rise" message.
Please, try to look at it rationally. I'm not going to report the guy, he's doing enough right now to torpedo his pet project, and I don't need to help him along.
I followed the discussions at Bitcointalk for a long time and there is a lot more wrong than you have pointed out. The entire system is in fact doomed from the start. I need not repeat it here, but the discussions have raged about how Mastercoin cannot work for a long time in bitcointalk.
Are you familiar with the rules of responsible disclosure? If you've complained to the devs, and they haven't listened, then you're potentially justified in releasing exploit code. If you release working exploit code, that will light a fire under the Mastercoin devs, and they'll have to do something.
Well yeah, fools sent their money to a random "exodus address". They are lucky the mastercoin dev hasn't done a runner yet S we have a job opening for some time now for a security auditor. Do you want to apply Alex? Sorry, I've already spent too much time on Mastercoin discussion, and I'm not a good security auditor anyway Yeah, Mastercoin is nonsense that somehow managed to collect tons of money, even though there was originally just a half-baked paper and no code.
Maybe they'll be able to produce something worthwhile with all the money, but I doubt it, and it'd look nothing like what they're currently doing. Theymos, what's your plan for the thousands of BTC you collected to fix up the bitcointalk forum? Was that ever resolved? Well hopefully you'll be able to find some good web developers.
I know they're hard to come by, particularly on a Bitcoin related forum. Is there a plan for what to do with the money in the long run? You're sitting on millions of dollars, and the forum already seems self-sustaining; it's just not going to be possible to consume all that wealth.
Why not just liquidate it amongst the staff and put this issue to an end before it becomes a serious problem? This "decentralized forum" farce has gone on long enough, it's painful to watch, someone needs to just become the owner or something. After all of the serious issues are taken care of, the forum can act as a charity, distributing its money to things like Bitcoin development. Start something like reverse reddit gold. The people vote for their favourite comments to get some satoshis!
Also is it really fair to call them donations when they were funds earmarked for a specific purpose? Why don't you return the appreciated value to the people who sent the money expecting you to get the job done? And I sort of doubt your claim that most of it came from ads.
Mike Hearn sums it up. They derive their mastercoin from a specific bitcoin address, which was funded prior to the exodus block. So far so good, nothing wrong with calling these bitcoins now mastercoin and trading these, except that doesn't seem to be what mastercoin attempts to do.
It seems that mastercoin attempts to use these bitcoins now as a carrier for messaging. Essentially using the blockchain to emit messages that carry meaning to clients which presumably would understand mastercoin. These messages carry meaning, such as sending of coins, trading and so forth, quite like bitcoin transactions carry meaning for bitcoin.
But there's an important difference. In bitcoin you cannot generate a faulty block by including transactions that can't exist such as creating bitcoins out of thin air, double spending, etc. You can't because if you do, that block will be rejected by everybody else by way of not basing their next block on yours.
So your chain will be orphaned and the one with the most work that is valid will win. This functionality is central to securing the funds of everybody.
You can think of it as a built-in "undo". If somebody tries to do things that would put everbodies funds in jeopardy by violating the rules by which bitcoin operates, that block is ignored and you go back to the last valid block and base your next block on that one.
But in mastercoin, if somebody emits a message that puts everybodies mastercoins at jeopardy, by going against the rules that mastercoin operates in, there is no way to undo that message by the network. Because the bitcoin network doesn't adhere by the rules of mastercoin, it adheres by the rules of bitcoin. So that exploitative transaction in mastercoin will live forever. I have played this scenario trough in my head many a time. It essentially comes down to the simple fact that a globally serialized communication channel isn't sufficient to implement a cryptocurrency that follows rules such as to keep everybodies funds secure.
You need a communications channel that only permits valid messages, so you need a mechanism that can exclude invalid messages. And that's what bitcoin does, and mastercoin doesn't. Clients will simply ignore invalid transactions.
Please check 'Parasitic consensus systems' section here. But this approach has many drawbacks: SPV doesn't work so no thin clients , no soft forks, etc. It has advantages too: Bitcoin transactions have explicit dependencies, while Mastercoin transactions have implicit dependencies, so they can be affected by 'global state'. Of course there's huge drawbacks, even if it would work. No thin client is essentially killing it practically.
Imagine if every bitcoin user would have to run a full node But it's worse, much worse than that. In bitcoin it's actually fairly straightforward to verify the validity of a transaction. All you need to do is to look at the inputs, lookup the blocks where their balance was established, and use that to confirm that the balance of inputs is greater or equal to the outputs.
The reason it's simple is that, previous work to verify those inputs validity, has already been established. You don't need to replicate the entire work that went into the longest blockchain of validating the entire transaction history. You just need to validate it up to where somebody else already validated it. But because in mastercoin you can insert immutable bogus transactions, you would need to verify the entire transaction history for every transaction.
You could naively claim, well, it's been valid up to here, so the next one has to be just checked against that "state", but that's a technicality.
But even if you assume, that this mind boggling overhead of validating everything by everyone all the time, and having to keep the entire blockchain around to do it wasn't killing enough, there's a completely new set of problems. How do you actually decide what is bogus, and what isn't? In bitcoin this is solved by enlighened self-interest. You want to protect your "work" that you just performed, by emitting a valid block and collecting the txfees and block reward. But in mastercoin, there is no such barrier.
You can process any transaction, be it valid or based on completely invalid transactions, and there's no penalty whatsoever. There's no work you invested to get there, no reward for validating things, in fact, you can just skip validating, there's no "rejecting" of your claim. This isn't a system to facilitate transactions and keep accounts. There's no bulletproof guarantee that your funds are safe, what is, and what isn't is a matter of interpretation by everybody.
It's a matter of maybes and maybe nots. It's not so much a consensus as it is the blockchain driven equivalent of a messaging board where everybody shouts their opinion and hopes his loudness was sufficient to convince most others.
If bitcoin is a system to keep accounts and perform transactions, not unlike bookkeping in the ledger of a bank by the authorized personel under careful supervision, then mastercoin is the attempt of emulating a bank using 4chan as a messaging medium and have everybody just shout what they think their account is. But even if you assume, that this mind boggling overhead of validating everything by everyone all the time.
You write some code to do it. Without a doubt, Mastercoin's code will be more complex, but it's hardly a problem. If you're able to produce a formal model and prove its correctness, it can actually be more secure than Bitcoin itself, in a way.
You see, that's where I think you're wrong, and ripple is wrong, and mastercoin is wrong. The brilliance of bitcoin is exactly that is has no need for complicated, barely graspable contortions of questionable effectiveness to provide the bulletproof accounting. In essence, bitcoin is the proof that worse is better.
There's a long history of trying to create digital currency, just like you are trying to, by coming up with some kind of fancy model, bycantean in its complexity, graspable by second to none, and it never worked. You're claiming that it is possible to have such a model, and to prove its correctness. Yet, you don't have such a model, it's just an unproven assumption you're throwing into the room.
I say it's impossible, which is just another unproven assumption. They way to prove that you're right, and I'm wrong, isn't to throw your assumptions around unproven. The way to prove is to do it, there's no other way, no amount of arguing on reddit or hiring PR people will do that.
Now I personally think, you're wasting your time, just as mastercoin is. You're trying to build on sand, and it's not gonna work. But as you're aware, the absence of a solution can rarely be proven, unless you're goedel, and even then, it might be tricky. The burden of proof, unfortunately, is on you, and you alone. And even then, you might arrive at a thesis that's impossible to disprove, so it's effectively still worthless.
Bitcoin is not bulletproof. There was a fuck up with overflow. There was a fuck up with fork due to block size. Sure there was, but that's not the criteria. The model behind bitcoin is as close as you will ever get to bulletproof. Technical snafus are a reality of building software, not proof that you can't build software. Bitcoins model can be explained relatively simple, and it's soundness can be proven.
But more importantly, it's soundness can be understood without understanding the a formal proof. It is simple, and elegant. The same cannot be said about ripple, or mastercoin, or your work. The measure of trust people express in a system, stands in relation to their ability to understand it. You might well come up with a system that may work, even one you might get to provide a formal proof for, and the proof might even be disprovable, which might make it sound, but people would still assign low value to it, because it can't be explained in a few sentences.
And again, arguing on reddit, or bitcointalk, isn't gonna do jack squat. Your doubters, including me, can't prove you wrong. In order to prove you wrong, you'd have to provide something to attack. But you haven't done so. So we can't even attempt a disprove. So, further debate on the merits of your particular hobby, is really not necessary. You can't will being right into existence. You can however, if you're capable of it, errect a thesis that people hundreds of times smarter than me can try to smash to pieces, and if it's still in one piece after that, you might have a shot.
I'm not sure what you're talking about My hobby is "colored coins", they are very different from Mastercoin. There is both code: I do not claim it is more secure than Bitcoin as it is based on Bitcoin. But it's, probably, as secure as Bitcoin itself. I haven't tried formal proofs yet, but the kernel is just like a hundred of lines of simple code, I would be surprised if it's not possible.
Don't let anyone tell you that arguing on reddit won't do jack squat. I've learned quite a lot from your posts. The long history of trying to create digital currency was all to create centralized currencies.
That's why they didn't work. Well, the old version 0. But I know a person who is interested in theoretic aspects and we in fact discussed it recently. Maybe I'll find some time to dig through code on weekend The dev said they plan on removing the centralization PoS in the next patch. I dunno when but it'll be in the next couple months.
He's a disgrace to Tachikomas everywhere, and isn't worth the metal he's made from. A bunch of alt-coins have no business being at the values they are. That's where the real bubble is and it will pop one day. It is a software layer built on top of the most popular, most audited, most secure blockchain -- Bitcoin. Omni transactions are Bitcoin transactions that enable next-generation features on the Bitcoin Blockchain. Our reference implementation, Omni Core is an enhanced Bitcoin Core that provides all the features of Bitcoin as well as advanced Omni Layer features.
With Omni it's simple to create tokens to represent custom currencies or assets and to transact these via the Bitcoin blockchain.
The power and simplicity offered by Omni has helped to make it the leading Bitcoin based token protocol. Click here to see a list of all created tokens. Decentralized crowdfunding is easy with Omni. Crowdsale participants can send bitcoins or tokens directly to an issuer address and the Omni Layer automatically delivers the crowdfunded tokens to the sender in return - all without needing to trust a third party. All currently active crowdsales can be found here.
Participants can use the distributed exchanges provided by the Omni Layer to exchange tokens for other tokens or bitcoins directly on the blockchain without the need for a third party exchange.