What is Rootstock’s RIF and why should you care ...

Re-Launching The Borderless, Unkillable Crypto-Fiat Gateway, DAIHard. Enter or Exit Crypto via Any Fiat and Any Payment Method, Anywhere in the World, Without KYC. All you need is a little Dai.

Some of you might recall recall our initial facepalm failed launch about 3 months ago (post-mortem here). Well, we're back--this time with an audit and some new features. This version of DAIHard should should die a little harder this time ;)

The Audit

After shopping around a bit in the auditor space, we decided to go with Adam Dossa--the very same Adam Dossa that actually found our launch vulnerability and responsibly disclosed it to us! You can see his report here. By the way, Adam has been a gem: friendly, professional, timely, and flexible. Definitely keep him in mind if you need an audit!

(Re)Introducing DAIHard

Following is an updated version of our original launch post. If you've already read that, you might want to skip to the heading What's New in v0.9.2. Or you can go straight to the app or go to our info site for more info!
Here is a legitimate concern most of us are familiar with:
To enter or exit the crypto economy, we rely on centralized exchanges such as Coinbase, which track their users, impose limits, and are tightly coupled to their jurisdiction and its banking system. And for all we know, any day now regulations could start tightening these controls further (*we've actually seen some of this play out in the two months since our first launch post). In light of this, can we say in any meaningful sense that crypto is anonymous, limtiless, borderless, immune to regulation, and (most importantly) unstoppable?
To really address this concern, we need a completely decentralized gateway between fiat and crypto: something that extends the benefits of crypto to the very act of moving between the old and new economies. But the design of such a platform is far from obvious.
(Localethereum comes close, but as discussed under Unkillable, it doesn't quite cut it. And Bisq is decentralized, but has significant UX hurdles.)
We believe we've found a solution. We are proud to present:

DAIHard v0.9.2 - Almost Definitely Not Broken This Time

If you want to jump right in, we recommend first watching our latest usage demo (7 min), then diving in and giving it a shot with a small amount of Dai. (Try it on Kovan first if mainnet is too scary!)
DAIHard extends many of the promises of crypto (borderless, anonymous, limitless, unstoppable) into the exchange mechanism itself, allowing anyone, anywhere to bypass centralized exchanges and the control they impose.
More concretely, DAIHard is a platform, run on smart contracts, for forming one-off crypto/fiat exchanges with other users, in which:
Again, our latest usage demo (7 min) shows this process in action.

Two drawbacks

You Need either xDai, or both Dai and Ether, to Use The Tool (At Least For Now)

If you want to buy Dai on DAIHard, you must already have Dai--1/3 of the amount you want to purchase--to put up as a burnable deposit. For example, if you only have 10 Dai now, you can only commit to buying 30 Dai, and must complete that trade before using the newly bought Dai to open up a bigger offer (for up to 120 Dai that time).
Most tragically of course, this means that if you don't already have some crypto, you can't use this tool to get crypto--this is why we avoid calling DAIHard an onramp specifically. This comes from the fact that both parties must have "skin in the game" for the game theory to work, and a smart contract can only threaten to burn crypto.
We have some ideas on how to address this drawback in the not-too-distant future, which we'll write about soon. For now it's time to launch this thing and get some users!

Dangerous and Scary To Use

In rare cases, a user may have to burn Dai and face a loss on the entire trade amount. The necessity of this ever-present risk is explained in detail in DAIHard Game Theory.
However, a cautious, rational user can gather information (possibly via our [subreddit](daihard)!) about how people have used the tool, successfully and unsuccessfully. They can then create a buy or sell offer with wisely chosen settings based on what has worked for others. Other cautious, rational users can find this offer and commit to the trade if they dare. We expect the vast majority of committed trades should involve rational, cautious users, and should therefore resolve happily.
Still, inevitably there will be sloppy trades that result in burns. As the tool is used, we'll be keeping a close eye on the frequency of burns and keeping you guys updated (perhaps via a "System Status" utility similar to the one found on MakerDao's explorer). In the end, though, we expect the risk in using DAIHard to be comparable to the risk of using any exchange or DNM: ever-present but low enough for the platform to be useful as whole.
So, while DAIHard will never shut down and can't perform an exit scam, the bad news is it's not risk-free. Users will have to approach DAIhard with the same level of caution they would with any new exchange (albeit for different reasons and with a different approach).
So what's the good news?

The Good News

While these drawbacks are significant, they enable some remarkable features that no other crypto/fiat exchange mechanism can boast.

Unkillable

(Correction: Bisq seems to have a decentralized arbitration system)
We are aware of no other crypto/fiat exchange platform that is truly unkillable. Bisq and localethereum comes close, but both localethereum relies on centralized processes of arbitration. This means their fraud-and-scam-prevention system can be sued, jailed, or otherwise harrassed--and if that part stops working, it doesn't matter how decentralized the rest of the system was.
DAIHard, in contrast, gives the users the power to police and punish each other, via the aforementioned credible threat of burn. This is simple game theory, and the rules of this game are etched permanently into the DAIHard Factory and Trade contract code: impervious to litigation, regulation, and political pressure.
This Factory contract has no owner and no suicide or pause code. It cannot be stopped by us or anyone else.
Like Toastycoin, this thing was immortal the moment it was deployed (even more immortal than RadarRelay, for example, which does rely on an ownership role). Both DAIHard and Toastycoin (and probably whatever we build next) will last for as long as a single Ethereum node continues mining, and it will remain easy to use as long as someone can find the HTML/JS front-end and a web3 wallet.
(The HTML/JS front-end (built in Elm, by the way, with the lovely elm-ethereum!) is currently hosted on Github pages, which is centralized--but even if Github takes down the page and deletes the code, it's a minor step to get the page hosted on IPFS, something that is on our near-term roadmap in any case)

No KYC, No Limits

It's smart contracts all the way down, so DAIHard never asks any nosy questions--if you have Metamask or some other web3 wallet installed and set up, with some ETH and Dai (or just xDai), you can immediately open or commit to a trade. You don't even need a username!
(In fact, we're so inclusive, even machines are allowed--no CAPTCHA here!)
You're limited only by the collateral you put up, so if you have 10,000 Dai you could open up a buy offer for 30,000 Dai (or a sell offer for 10,000 Dai) right now.
We do reccommend trying the tool out first with a small amount of Dai... But we're not your mom! Do what you want!

Borderless

It simply doesn't matter where you are, because DAIHard doesn't need to interface with any particular jurisdiction or payment system to work. DIAHard works by incentivizing people (or robots?) to navigate the particular real-world hurdles of bank transfers, cash drops, or other fiat transfer methods. These incentives work whether you're in America, Zimbabwe, or the Atlantic; they work whether the fiat is USD, EUR, ZAR, seashells, or Rai Stones; and they work whether your counterparty is a human, an organization, a script, or a particularly intelligent dog with Internet access.

Any Fiat Type, and Highly Customizeable

Here are some examples of the types of trades you might create or find on DAIHard.
As the DAIHard community grows, users will doubtless find much more creative ways to use the system, and we will discover together which types of trades are reliable and which are more risky. Because users can set their own prices and phase timeout settings, we expect the risky trades to charge a premium or have longer time windows, while the reliable ones rapidly multiply at close to a 1:1 price ratio, with quick turnaround times.

Extensible (with profit) by Third Parties

Not satisfied with our interface? Do you have some nifty idea for how to display and organize user reputation? Or maybe some idea for how trades could be chained togeher? Maybe you'd like to design a notification system for DAIHard? Maybe you just want a different color scheme!
Well, you won't need our permission to do any of this. Any tool that watches the same Factory contract will share the pool of trades, regardless of which tool actually creates the trade. This means we don't even have to fight over network effects!
And if you look closely at our fee structure, you might notice that only half of the 1% DAIHard fee is "hardcoded" into the Factory contract. The other half is set and charged by our interface. What does this mean for you? If you go out and make a better interface, you can essentially replace half of our 1% fee with your own fee--it's up to you whether it's smaller or larger than the replaced 0.5%.
The reason for this is to explicitly welcome other developers to extend what we've built. For as long as our team is the only one improving the platform, a threat to us is a threat to future upgrades. But if others begin extending the DAIHard platform too, then DAIHard will not only be unstoppable as it is today, but also grow unstoppably.

(For Real This Time) This Is a Big Fucking Deal

DAIHard is a turning point in crypto and a breakthrough in decentralized markets, and is an irreversible augmentation of the Ethereum platform.
What we've built is a gateway to crypto completely devoid of centralized components--rendering entry and exit to crypto unkillable, flexible, borderless, and private. Centralized exchanges, and the control they impose, can now be bypassed by anyone with Dai and a web3 wallet.

What's New in v0.9.2

There have been many changes made since our first failed launch, but there are two rather important ones: xDai support and reputation tools.

xDai support

DAIHard is now operational on xDai, a sidechain whose native token (xDai) is pegged to the Dai (and therefore $1). Add the xDai network to your Metamask (or just install Nifty Wallet), then switch to the xDai network in your wallet, to try it out. xDai has some pretty incredible benefits, compared to vanilla Ethereum:

Reputation tools

We now have a few reputation tools. First, on any open trade, there is a widget showing the number of releases, aborts, and burns the given address has been involved in as that role (buyer or seller). Clicking on this expands the widget to show more detailed information, and also provides a link to a page that lists each trade this user has been or is involved in.

What's next?

We have tons of ideas on how to improve the product--too many, in fact, to commit to any before we get a good chunk of user feedback. Here are some of our favorite ideas:

Near-Term, Smaller Features

  1. Lots of usability improvements.
  2. A "System Status" utility similar to the one found on MakerDao's explorer).
  3. Marketplace / My Trades rework.
  4. A "QuickTrade" page, offering Trade Templates as an alternative to the current Create Offer page.

Big Exciting Features

  1. Bootstrapping people with no DAI via other mechanisms and community outreach.
  2. Partial commits to trades. eg. Place a 10,000 DAI trade and allow it to be picked up in blocks larger than 500 DAI at a time.
  3. More chains, get this thing working on Bitcoin via Rootstock, on Ethereum Classic and Binance Chain.

Stay Informed!

A lot of the above features will be prioritized more clearly as we get user feedback, and we will be posting fairly frequent updates and articles on our info site. If you don't want to miss anything, note the subscribe widget and sign up!
submitted by coinop-logan to ethereum [link] [comments]

Ethereum competitors

Please help me improve the list, I'm sure it has inaccuracies:
 
EOS, Rchain, AION, ICON, Aeternity - no live platforms yet, you're just buying tokens on the Ethereum platform
Note that not having a live platform yet does not mean that these projects are scams. This is actually the best way to compete against Ethereum: work on the software development without stress, forks or responsibilities, develop the platform fully, then launch.
Zilliqa - no live platform yet, you'll just be buying tokens on the Ethereum platform
Tezos - raised a bunch of money, promised they'd deliver in a few months, stil no live platform
BOScoin - after failing with their own code, they just forked from Stellar lol; and they still haven't launched yet
Cardano, Stratis, Lisk, Waves - no smart contracts implemented
Neo - marketing ploy, it only has 1 or 2 active developers working on the main platform https://github.com/neo-project/neo/commits/master
Vechain - it's not even open source lol; it's a company selling its services to other companies
Qtum - a fork of fucking Bitcoin
Ethereum Classic - the original Ethereum without the DAO fork, that can't even keep up with Ethereum's commits; they also plan on remaining PoW lol
Ubiq, Expanse - Ethereum clones
RSK (previously Rootstock) - bitcoin sidechain with smart contracts; no idea what stage they're at
Achain - ?
Neblio - ?
Metaverse ETP - ?
RISE, Shift - Lisk clones
There are other competitors as well, but they're worth mentioning even less.
submitted by laurbyteball to ethereum [link] [comments]

The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 3a - The value proposition

*Introductions: I'm joskye. A cryptocurrency investor and SDC holder. *
...
Hi again. This is the third part in our ongoing series on how to trade better and determine intelligent investments in cryptocurrency for the future.
In part 3 I will now discuss Cryptocurrency valuations, price metrics and identifying coins of value, worth holding.
...
What makes a coin worth holding: The value proposition
What makes anything worth holding? How much of themselves is a person willing to put into it - that's how much.
Cryptocurrency is largely driven by faith. It is a speculative enterprise i.e. people mostly put money into cryptocurrencies believing they will go up in value in the future; their plan to sell at a higher price when it does.
Currently most cryptocurrencies serve no function than being currencies in themselves. Unfortunately these currencies are largely not recognised by governments, most institutional investors or companies are legitimate stores of value or legitimate currencies of transaction. As such legislation and rules around the world regarding them vary considerably and are often absent.
There are very few cryptocurrencies that have legitimised backing, are insured or supported by enterprises that are insured for their loss and essentially there is little to protect you if you lose money through them.
So why do people bother putting money into cryptocurrencies it in the first place?
If the present and future value of a cryptocurrency is driven purely by speculation then you are essentially gambling by putting your money to buy that coin and joining the pool of other gamblers who are doing so. You are essentially joining a ponzi scheme and waiting game hoping you've gotten in early enough and convinced enough people to buy more of the asset you hold at slightly higher prices until a price is reached that you can cash out at (or until that thing becomes so big that everyone starts using it as their store of value).
This type of dynamic essentially underpins the mentality of most investments and trades i.e. buy low and sell high. I'd like to add buy early for investors since buying during a low in an already established asset may be setting yourself up for being forced to sell at a lower low later (especially if you don't understand the fundamentals of that asset).
If however the present or future value of a cryptocurrency is driven by some service other than speculation which can attract and drive fiat currency into it's ecosystem then it is potentially valuable.
I.e. will people actually use their USD/Yuan/Euro/GBP/Yen/INR etc to actually purchase the coin in question to do something useful with it (other than gamble on it's future price).
There are some cryptocurrencies which satisfy this criteria:
...
Bitcoin
It is not a currency, it is a remittance system and store of value. It has a reputation increasingly to being seen as a digital version of gold.
Bitcoin has the cultural and historical advantage of being the first cryptocurrency. It is also still the largest cryptocurrency by a long way with the largest marketcap i.e. price per bitcoin [$952 as of writing] x the number of bitcoin in circulation [16,074,687] which is $15.3 billion. Compare to it's next biggest competitor Ethereum which has a marketcap of $700 million (i.e. only 4.57% of Bitcoin's).
Bitcoin's value proposition is that it is a store of value. It may not be able to sustain this without significant upgrades to it's underlying software.
...
Monero (XMR)
Bitcoin does not have anonymity inherently built into it's software. Therefore if you buy and sell Bitcoin especially on cryptocurrency exchanges (where user registration is required), it is possible to trace whom Bitcoin is being transferred from and to.
For this reason I see Monero as Bitcoin + anonymity. I.e. it's value proposition is as store of hidden wealth. I also believe it does not have the issues that bitcoin does namely, same level of mainstream recognition, spotlight of regulatory awareness and developers do seem to be more focused on achieving better scalability and transaction times (it already does 10-20 minute verification time vs bitcoins 1 hour) which gives it better potential as a currency presently compared to Bitcoin.
-This sort of market cap dwarfs gold. However this type of up-scaled usability will not occur until the transaction verification times are much faster (nanoseconds) and the protocol is enhanced to cope with much larger transactions volumes and frequency at that speed; We are a long way off that.
I do believe fiat stored in Bitcoin will gradually transfer into Monero boosting it's value. I am not sure Monero though can presently bring fresh fiat currency (USD, Yuan etc) into it's ecosystem beyond outsider speculation in future price.
It is not unique in it's function or potential value proposition. My warning about holding Monerofor the long term is that it has competition for it's function not just from Bitcoin itself but from other anonymous coins such as Zcash, DASH (which provides instantaneous settlement) and SDC. Perhaps more importantly, Ethereum (ETH) is now planning to implement optional anonymity (via zSNARKs) in it's transaction network; if it does when combined with Ethereum's own functionality and well defined development roadmap (that will likely several second verification times in late 2017) would render XMR potentially redundant.
...
Ethereum (ETH)
The value proposition for Ethereum is that it allows for complex, trustless settlement systems to be built on it. This is a huge deal because the scope of applications is wide and although the technology needs to mature (to support greater transaction volume, frequency and more secure functionality) the sheer amount of fiat such a platform could attract through conversion of traditional centralised settlement and contract services to more secure decentralised platforms is very huge.
...
Shadowcash (SDC)
The value proposition is a double escrow, fully anonymous, decentralised privacy platform which incorporates private chat, private marketplace and secure, trustless private settlement system into one platform that is fully integrated into it's own blockchain.
Shadowcash already has multiple features that make it an excellent store of value: Low coin supply, potential for great demand, near instantaneous transaction verification times, ability to earn interest for simply holding it.
Shadowcash is incredibly easy to use and is heavily focused on usability. This is absolutely essential to it's end users: customers who seek convenient easy and speedy secure anonymous transaction. This will be a dream come true for traditional users of darknet markets.
To explain why lets elaborate on traditional darknet markets where in order to transact anonymously you have to:
1. Download the TOR browser. 2. Learn how to use it. 3. Buy XMR or Bitcoin. 4. Learn how to transact with these coins *safely* (yes this is still an issue with XMR in spite of it's built in privacy). 5. Learn how to and where to find reliable secure darknet markets. 6. Create accounts on these markets to access them *and* 7. Have faith that the websites and the highly centralised (and thus much more vulnerable) servers hosting those markets you use will not get shut down, not disappear with your money and not betray your transaction details and potentially identities to the authorities should they be infiltrated by them. 
Whereas with Shadowcash's market place this process will become:
1. Download the Shadowcash Umbra client (https://shadowproject.io/en/gettingstarted) 2. Buy some SDC on an exchange and transfer it to your Umbra client. 3. Browse the Shadowcash marketplace and transact securely, safely and anonymously. 
In summary I think Shadowcash can be a very useful application as a privacy platform for private communications and transactions.
...
ICONOMI (ICN)
Those two points constitute it's value proposition. By nature of the way it works it has an easily identifiable P/E ratio based on the amount used to create the fund ($10.5 million) against the current value of that fund based on it's
...
Summary lessons
The first rule in investing or trading in a given cryptocoin is deciding if it has a value proposition:
1. *Can it draw fiat currency (USD, Euro, Yuan etc) in such a way as to give it a valuation that is fully independent of pure speculation?* 2. *Is it unique?* 3. *Is it rare?* A limited supply with a low or negative inflation rate will lead to increasing price as demand goes up. 4. Are there significant risks associated with the value proposition? 
In the next article I will cover lesson 3b: Price metrics and valuations. It will be much shorter I promise but equally informative and we will cover topics such as price determination, impact of speculation, price manipulation, whales and their impact and the impact of bitcoin on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Finally just to really hammer it home; why am I posting this on the Shadowcash subreddit?
It is because Shadowcash is the best cryptocurrency investment of 2016 and I believe it will be again by March 2017.
...
References:
1. Crypto-Currency Market Capitalizations, https://coinmarketcap.com/, Last Checked 30/01/2017 2. What is the value of all the Gold in the world? http://onlygold.com/Info/All-The-Gold-In-The-World.asp, Last Checked 30/01/2017. 3. ICONOMI Cryptocurrencies Index (ICNX) 21 December 2016 Rebalancing, https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-cryptocurrencies-index-icnx-21-december-2016-rebalancing-transformation-into-iconomi-8e31e48493ab#.sptgljv1c 4. ICNx trend chart, https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-cryptocurrencies-index-icnx-30-november-2016-monthly-rebalancing-update-3402866243d9#.kw7g4fqcd, Last updated 30th Nov 2017 5. Shadowcash (SDC) - The billion dollar baby!, https://medium.com/@paradox_/shadowcash-sdc-the-billion-dollar-baby-6b86f0660739#.ypz9yme5a, Last updated 16 August 2016. 
...
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for your financial decisions, nor am I advising you take a particular financial position. Rather I am sharing my experiences and hoping you form your own opinions and insights from them. Full disclosure: I have long positions in Ethereum (ETH), Shadowcash (SDC), ICONOMI (ICN), Augur (REP) and Digix (DGD).
submitted by joskye to Shadowcash [link] [comments]

Ethereum's advantages for Bitcoin highlight how Ethereum has won the smart contract market for years to come - at a minimum

If you're new to Ethereum, but in love with Bitcoin, you may be thinking, "well, Ethereum is winning now, but Rootstock is still a contender". This topic come up frequently and has been addressed community members quite well. Because posts get censored elsewhere, and deleted over time, I thought I'd reiterate the points here.
tl;dr Using Ethereum to create bonded side chains has advantage to Bitcoin holders that cannot be obtained by non-currency agnostic chains (such as the proposed chain called Rootstock). Ethereum is better for Bitcoin, and with PoS, is more secure.
Rootstock is currently a proposal to be the path to creating smart contracts with Bitcoin. There is this idea out there called “bitcoin maximalization” in which a some cryptocurrency enthusiasts will only accept Bitcoin as THE blockchain of the future. Well, the challenge with that idea is that, while Bitcoin was the first successful blockchain, it is also slow, expensive, and the least-developed. Bitcoin maximalists believe that will change. They believe that bitcoin will adapt. They think Bitcoin will incorporate more technological innovation and maintain global dominance. Sadly, this belief still holds true for many, despite the clear conflicts between mining, development, and exchanges that have driven the long drawn out block size debate. Bitcoin ability to adapt and incorporate new technology is clearly questionable.
One technological revolution brought on by Ethereum has been the smart contract (programmable automated contracts). Ethereum has had a year long monopoly on this innovation, and the monopoly appear to be maintain for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin maximalists do not like that idea. They feel it is a threat to Bitcoin dominance.
While bitcoin and Ethereum COULD make lovely music together, the idea that Bitcoin could lose its dominant position (by market cap) is likely true. Ethereum has many more use cases. This doesn’t mean Bitcoin will go extinct. As a streamlined, non-bloated, currency, it may still be very useful, but I digress.
What if Bitcoin could simply gain Ethereum’s technological sophistication? Rootstock desires to do just that, well, sort of, and for a piece of the pie. For that reason, it’s often promoted by /Bitcoin (a highly censored bitcoin community similar /btc).
So how will Rootstock plan to achieve this?
First, understand Rootstock is currently vapor. An idea and an implementation can be worlds apart. At the time of this post, there is not a single line of code on Github, while Ethereum has just matured to "Homestead" and is running perfectly. While some describe Rootstock as “open source”, currently, nothing is open. Ethereum development took years to get where it is today, and the open aspect of the development led to Etherum’s current remarkable sophistication and stable platform.
But let’s assume, fairly, that Rootstock does eventually emerge from vapor. Rootstock developers are borrowing some of Ethereum’s technology. Thus, in some sense, some of the work is provided for them thanks to Ethereum. Of course, it is easy to overstate. You can’t just cut and paste Ethereum and have it work. It requires a massive amount of development.
So what will Rootstock look like.
Currently, they have two major version planned:
vovobov (throwaway account) had this nice contribution:
Ethereum as a bonded sidechain of Bitcoin with advantages over Rootstock
What is a sidechain?
According to block stream:
A sidechain is a blockchain that validates data from other blockchains
Ethereum already does that with BTC Relay. So how about pegged assets?
This is an idea for an Ethereum contract that makes Bitcoin-backed tokens without any softfork or trusted Bitcoin multisig managers. Instead, Bitcoin IOU's are created on the Ethereum blockchain and backed by Ether bonds which are governed by Ethereum contracts like BTC Relay or price oracles. The Bitcoin IOUs are backed by Bitcoins held by the escrow managers but if they steal/lose the Bitcoins (or refuse to redeem them) the Bonded Escrow Contract will observe their naughty behaviour and sell their Ether bond to redeem the Bitcoins from someone else!
Rootstock vs Bonded Escrow Contract on Ethereum
There are two methods that Rootstock developers plan to use for issuing Bitcoin IOUs (called "Roots") on their Bitcoin "sidechain". AFAIU the first involves merged mining and a multisig wallet that entrusts a quorum of Bitcoin miners with the entire basket of Bitcoin eggs that were "moved" to the Rootstock chain. The second method requires softforking the Bitcoin blockchain for a two-way peg.
Pseudonymous, distributed, untrusted issuers
Rootstock dev maaku7:
“It's a known trade-off made by any presently deployable implementation of the 2-way peg. It's also something that we were very upfront about in the sidechains paper, and part of the reason why many of us are so concerned about decentralization of bitcoin mining.
In any non-SNARK, non-extension-block version of the 2-way peg a bitcoin node does not perform full validation of the sidechain as part of the consensus rules. Therefore it is perfectly possible (by design) for a threshold majority of the miners / signers to steal the coins in the peg pool, and censor any attempt to stop them. Why by design? Because that's the promise of sidechains: performant permissionless innovation at the cost of SPV trust in the honest majority of signers / miners.
Sidechains we are working on (e.g. Alpha, Liquid) and Rootstock, by the looks of it, make use of a fixed set of signers instead of or in addition to reliance on >50% honest hashpower. This is because while less pure, it is ultimately safer to work with known, contracted entities as functionaries rather than 50% hashpower which at the moment is just a small handful of unaccountable people.
EDIT: Although obviously the ideal end goal is fully decentralized mining, where creating a 50% hashpower cabal requires organizing thousands of people at minimum. In such a case we may be able to consider a pure SPV peg to have a reasonable security model. But we're a long way from there yet...”
says this about sidechain security:
“In any non-SNARK, non-extension-block version of the 2-way peg a bitcoin node does not perform full validation of the sidechain as part of the consensus rules. Therefore it is perfectly possible (by design) for a threshold majority of the miners / signers to steal the coins in the peg pool, and censor any attempt to stop them. Why by design? Because that's the promise of sidechains: performant permissionless innovation at the cost of SPV trust in the honest majority of signers / miners.”
Ether bonds can remove most of the need for this trust and allow pseudonymous, permissionless participation in issuance and escrow management. Without anonymous, untrusted validators, distributed around the world, Bitcoin is looking more and more like Chinese Liberty Reserve or E-gold. …
Bonded sidechains decentralize pegged assets
Even with a Bitcoin softfork, Rootstock has just one Bitcoin IOU with all the Bitcoins sitting like a duck in one "wallet". Since Roots are just one Bitcoin IOU from one issuer, they can't be used to back/bond IOUs the way Ether can. If Rootstock's multisig/SPV wallet is robbed by it's signers/miners or (as they always say) hackers, the value of Roots become "zero" along with any asset or contract using Roots. Ether continues to have value if Bitcoins are stolen. Theft just thins out the herd and makes people more cautious. Ether bonds make issuers mostly responsible for their IOUs with IOU holders assuming some risk if Ether loses too much value to Bitcoin.
Issuing servers and indie issuers
A basic Bonded Escrow Contract is practically complete since BTC Relay does the difficult part. "Bonded Escrow Contract" is completely decentralized and requires no modification to Bitcoin. It would allow anyone to "anonymously" manage Bitcoin escrow wallets or issue Bitcoin IOUs. They only need to obtain Ether for the bond, send it to the Bonded Escrow Contract along with their Bitcoin escrow address and the terms of the IOU they wish to create. Indie issuers don't have to babysit a "server" (that needs to be online all the time) if they create IOU contracts that won't have harsh penalties if they take some time to redeem the tokens. IOU buyers who want faster redemption can buy IOU's from issuing servers. Issuers are free to choose alternatives to SPV such as prediction markets, to verify Bitcoin transactions.
Bonded Escrow Contract options
Here are some options that the Bonded Escrow Contract could make available: * Designate how much Bitcoin the IOU tokens are to be worth and how much Ether will back them. This may be a fixed rate or it may be based on other Ethereum price oracle contracts. If a price oracle is used the issuer may have to add Ether to prevent the IOU from going into default if the Ether price goes down relative to Bitcoin. * Set exchange or rental rates for the Bitcoin IOUs. These rates may be in Ether and/or Bitcoin and could be based on oracle/derivatives contracts.
When IOUs aren't redeemed (right away)
What happens if the IOU's are sent back to the issuer but the Bitcoins aren't released right away?
In more recent news:
Rootstock devs (RSK) clarified that instead of creating a token, like Ether, which is sold to the public to fund initial development. With Rootstock, “every time a person or a corporation runs a smart contract on RSK, 80% of the fuel paid goes to the miners and the remaining 20% to RSK Labs, so we can continue the development of the open source platform”.
In other words, Rootstock is a sidechain business venture centrally controlled by RSK. Unlike Ethereum, it is NOT a public resource. This does not foster independent, open source, development, such as what we are seeing with ventures like Ethcore and Consensys and well, the many many other Ethereum developers well deserving of attention. If you’re planning to build on Rootstock, RSK labs get a cut of your expenses. Enjoy having a new boss. That doesn’t exist with Ethereum!!! The Ethereum Foundation started the enterprise, but Ethereum development is already much bigger than a single foundation.
sjalq also makes these fair comments:
Add to this is that Ethereum's PoS will be far more scalable, with Casper development reaching high levels of sophistication.
Basically, unless you absolutely refuse to hold anything but Bitcoin, there is no reason to ever use what's proposed for Rootstock. It's less capable, less secure, less scalable, more centralized, and will be two years behind Ethereum's remarkable network effect (at a minimum). Ethereum's monopoly is going no where for the foreseeable future.
Update: March 18th 2016
What About Counterparty?
  • In most repects, Counterparty's model has the exact same issues as Rootstock's outlined above, so it's the same problems as that described above. Unlike Rootstock, there will be an altcoin, but instead of currency agnostics, it's connected only to bitcoin.
  • Counterparty is also greatly limited by bitcoin's slow blocktime.
  • Detail discussion here.. Basically, Counterparty's model is a model that the Ethereum founders abandoned because it is a technologically poor decision.
  • More perspective from Ethereum dev Alex van de Sande.
    • "many ex-xcp developers who are migrating to Ethereum due to ease of development and better tools. [such as Bitnation] ... Also I don't understand the advantage of counterparty 'using Bitcoin': they also have their own token and their own Blockchain, what is gained by having a ten minute block time?"
    • "The 'there's only one Blockchain' crowd is what we call 'Bitcoin maximalism'. I think this is more a political position than a pragmatic one: Ethereum Blockchain is secure and created from the ground up for contracts. Counterparty is hack trying to put them into a Blockchain that wasn't made for it and doesn't seem to want contracts. I do wish them the best, I just never saw their software stack."
    • "... they claimed they had cloned us and then the next day Vitalik answered that he had implemented counterparty in X lines of codes in ethereum."
  • VB response to "What Ethereum can do that Counterparty cannot"
    1. <15s block time
    2. Light client support
    3. Lack of exposure to Bitcoin development politics (personally, I think this point alone is enough to outweigh whatever 8x difference in dollars wasted per hour on PoW the maximalists like to wave around, and was the original reason for not making ethereum itself a bitcoin-based metacoin)
    4. Lack of exposure to the possibility of Paul Sztorc convincing bitcoin miners that XCP decreases the value of BTC and so should be censored by miners.
    5. Lack of artificially low block size limit
    6. Has a coherent long-term scalability roadmap
    7. Just to throw a bitcoin maximalist argument right back at them, ETH has way better liquidity than XCP so there's less overhead in acquiring the token to pay fees (alongside other network effects like developer tools, user community, etc)
    8. We have DELEGATECALL implemented, they as I understand don't
  • VB does give Counterparty one benefit
    "That said, counterparty is more closely linked to the bitcoin blockchain, so it's easier to make crowdsales that accept bitcoin directly; that's the primary point in favor of a bitcoin blockchain-based metacoin. Though now btcrelay makes up for quite a bit of that difference."
What About Lisk?
It's basically trying to be Ethereum, but using javascript (rather than Ethereum's clients which make a hell of a lot more sense, such as Go, C++, Python, Rust, Java, Ruby, .net). A Javascript Ethereum is a terrible idea, and even if it wasn't, why devote a whole new blockchain to it. Seems pointless, leading to some to suggest this may be an elaborate scam. I doubt it's a scam, but it does seem poorly thought out.
Ethereum's Solidity is VERY close to Javascript, but MUCH better for smart contracts.
As noted by Itsaconspiracy and Nevermindthequestion :
  • The javascript is sandboxed but unrestricted. They have half a dozen rules you're supposed to follow in contracts, to avoid breaking consensus. Nothing's stopping you from putting a call to math.random() in your contract and then nobody gets the same results. Every contract runs in its own sidechain so at least you're not breaking global consensus, but contracts can call each other so it's not totally isolates easier for bugs to sneak in. For example, if someone passes the string "1" into a parameter where you're expectd either.
  • Javascript numbers are all floating-point, so you can get rounding errors in your contracts. (It's possible that they provide a bignum library, but I don't think so, their rules for contract writers don't say "please use our bignum library.")
  • Javascript has weak dynamic typing, so it'ing a number, and you haven't written explicit code to convert it to a number, then you can end up with the wrong answer. ("1" + 2) / 3 = 4 in Javascript. (Try it yourself online).
  • Not to mention that the LISK contracts will be stored in plaintext, which means they'll be vastly more expensive to publish.
OK, so Bitcoin focused smart contracts and LISK are bad ideas, but sometimes bad ideas win, after all, bla bla "network effect"
Ethereum already has its own network effect within the smart contract space. Bitcoin is far behind. There really is no mechanism to catch up. At this time, there appears to be just as much fresh money going into Ethereum development as Bitcoin, if not more (200+ project and counting) and over a billion dollars in investments estimated this year by Vinay Gupta. Bitcoin is certainly used as a currency in more places, but its use as a currency is still pretty much a joke. An Ethereum credit card would make this "currency network effect" absolutely pointless. What people don't seem to get it that Bitcoin's market cap is larger as an artifact of it being around longer, but soon, that will change. The amount of new investment in Ethereum, the number of devs deeply involved in Ethereum projects, has already made Bitcoin's history irrelevant. It seems very obvious to me. In my opinion, it really is over already. Ethereum has already won its place as the primary public blockchain. It's just a matter of time before people realize it. And some very clever investors, already have.
submitted by nbr1bonehead to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 3a - The value proposition

Introductions: I'm joskye. A cryptocurrency investor and holder.
...
 
Hi again. This is the third part in our ongoing series on how to trade better and determine intelligent investments in cryptocurrency for the future.
 
 
In part 3 I will now discuss Cryptocurrency valuations, price metrics and identifying coins of value, worth holding:
 
...
 
What makes a coin worth holding: The value proposition
 
What makes anything worth holding? How much of themselves is a person willing to put into it - that's how much.
Cryptocurrency is largely driven by faith. It is a speculative enterprise i.e. people mostly put money into cryptocurrencies believing they will go up in value in the future; their plan to sell at a higher price when it does.
Currently most cryptocurrencies serve no function than being currencies in themselves. Unfortunately these currencies are largely not recognised by governments, most institutional investors or companies are legitimate stores of value or legitimate currencies of transaction. As such legislation and rules around the world regarding them vary considerably and are often absent.
There are very few cryptocurrencies that have legitimised backing, are insured or supported by enterprises that are insured for their loss and essentially there is little to protect you if you lose money through them.
 
So why do people bother putting money into cryptocurrencies it in the first place?
 
 
If the present and future value of a cryptocurrency is driven purely by speculation then you are essentially gambling by putting your money to buy that coin and joining the pool of other gamblers who are doing so. You are essentially joining a ponzi scheme and waiting game hoping you've gotten in early enough and convinced enough people to buy more of the asset you hold at slightly higher prices until a price is reached that you can cash out at (or until that thing becomes so big that everyone starts using it as their store of value).
 
This type of dynamic essentially underpins the mentality of most investments and trades i.e. buy low and sell high. I'd like to add buy early for investors since buying during a low in an already established asset may be setting yourself up for being forced to sell at a lower low later (especially if you don't understand the fundamentals of that asset).
 
If however the present or future value of a cryptocurrency is driven by some service other than speculation which can attract and drive fiat currency into it's ecosystem then it is potentially valuable.
 
I.e. will people actually use their USD/Yuan/Euro/GBP/Yen/INR etc to actually purchase the coin in question to do something useful with it (other than gamble on it's future price).
 
There are some cryptocurrencies which satisfy this criteria:
 
...
 
Bitcoin
It is not a currency, it is a remittance system and store of value. It has a reputation increasingly to being seen as a digital version of gold.
 
 
 
 
 
Bitcoin has the cultural and historical advantage of being the first cryptocurrency. It is also still the largest cryptocurrency by a long way with the largest marketcap i.e. price per bitcoin [$952 as of writing] x the number of bitcoin in circulation [16,074,687] which is $15.3 billion. Compare to it's next biggest competitor Ethereum which has a marketcap of $700 million (i.e. only 4.57% of Bitcoin's).
 
 
 
 
Bitcoin's value proposition is that it is a store of value. It may not be able to sustain this without significant upgrades to it's underlying software.
 
...
 
Monero (XMR)
Bitcoin does not have anonymity inherently built into it's software. Therefore if you buy and sell Bitcoin especially on cryptocurrency exchanges (where user registration is required), it is possible to trace whom Bitcoin is being transferred from and to.
 
 
For this reason I see Monero as Bitcoin + anonymity. I.e. it's value proposition is as store of hidden wealth. I also believe it does not have the issues that bitcoin does namely, same level of mainstream recognition, spotlight of regulatory awareness and developers do seem to be more focused on achieving better scalability and transaction times (it already does 10-20 minute verification time vs bitcoins 1 hour) which gives it better potential as a currency presently compared to Bitcoin.
 
 
I do believe fiat stored in Bitcoin will gradually transfer into Monero boosting it's value. I am not sure Monero though can presently bring fresh fiat currency (USD, Yuan etc) into it's ecosystem beyond outsider speculation in future price.
 
 
It is not unique in it's function or potential value proposition. My warning about holding Monero for the long term is that it has competition for it's function not just from Bitcoin itself but from other anonymous coins such as Zcash, DASH (which provides instantaneous settlement) and SDC. Perhaps more importantly, Ethereum (ETH) is now planning to implement optional anonymity (via zSNARKs) in it's transaction network; if it does when combined with Ethereum's own functionality and well defined development roadmap (that will likely several second verification times in late 2017) would render XMR potentially redundant.
 
...
Ethereum (ETH)
The first cryptocurrency which was built with the specific intent of incorporating 'smart contracts' into it's platform.
 
 
The value proposition for Ethereum is that it allows for complex, trustless settlement systems to be built on it. This is a huge deal because the scope of applications is wide and although the technology needs to mature (to support greater transaction volume, frequency and more secure functionality) the sheer amount of fiat such a platform could attract through conversion of traditional centralised settlement and contract services to more secure decentralised platforms is very huge.
 
 
...
 
PARTICL (PART) (formerly Shadowcash SDC)
The value proposition is a double escrow, fully anonymous, decentralised privacy platform which incorporates private chat, private marketplace and secure, trustless private settlement system into one platform that is fully integrated into it's own blockchain.
 
 
Particl has multiple features that make it an excellent store of value: Low coin supply, potential for great demand, near instantaneous transaction verification times, ability to earn interest for simply holding it.
 
Particl is incredibly easy to use and is heavily focused on usability. This is absolutely essential to it's end users: customers who seek convenient easy and speedy secure anonymous transaction. This will be a dream come true for traditional users of darknet markets.
 
To explain why lets elaborate on traditional darknet markets where in order to transact anonymously you have to:
1. Download the TOR browser. 2. Learn how to use it. 3. Buy XMR or Bitcoin. 4. Learn how to transact with these coins *safely* (yes this is still an issue with XMR in spite of it's built in privacy). 5. Learn how to and where to find reliable secure darknet markets. 6. Create accounts on these markets to access them *and* 7. Have faith that the websites and the highly centralised (and thus much more vulnerable) servers hosting those markets you use will not get shut down, not disappear with your money and not betray your transaction details and potentially identities to the authorities should they be infiltrated by them. 
Whereas with Particl's market place this process will become:
1. Download the Particl client. 2. Buy some PART on an exchange and transfer it to your Umbra client. 3. Browse the Particl marketplace and transact securely, safely and anonymously. 
 
 
In summary I think Particl can be a very useful application as a privacy platform for private communications and transactions.
 
...
 
ICONOMI (ICN)
Those two points constitute it's value proposition. By nature of the way it works it has an easily identifiable P/E ratio based on the amount used to create the fund ($10.5 million) against the current value of that fund based on it's
 
...
 
Summary lessons
 
The first rule in investing or trading in a given cryptocoin is deciding if it has a value proposition:
 
1. *Can it draw fiat currency (USD, Euro, Yuan etc) in such a way as to give it a valuation that is fully independent of pure speculation?* 2. *Is it unique?* 3. *Is it rare?* A limited supply with a low or negative inflation rate will lead to increasing price as demand goes up. 4. Are there significant risks associated with the value proposition? 
 
 
In the next article I will cover lesson 3b: Price metrics and valuations. It will be much shorter I promise but equally informative and we will cover topics such as price determination, impact of speculation, price manipulation, whales and their impact and the impact of bitcoin on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem!
...
 
References:
1. Crypto-Currency Market Capitalizations, https://coinmarketcap.com/, Last Checked 30/01/2017 2. What is the value of all the Gold in the world? http://onlygold.com/Info/All-The-Gold-In-The-World.asp, Last Checked 30/01/2017. 3. ICONOMI Cryptocurrencies Index (ICNX) 21 December 2016 Rebalancing, https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-cryptocurrencies-index-icnx-21-december-2016-rebalancing-transformation-into-iconomi-8e31e48493ab#.sptgljv1c 4. ICNx trend chart, https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-cryptocurrencies-index-icnx-30-november-2016-monthly-rebalancing-update-3402866243d9#.kw7g4fqcd, Last updated 30th Nov 2017 5. Shadowcash (SDC) - The billion dollar baby!, https://medium.com/@paradox_/shadowcash-sdc-the-billion-dollar-baby-6b86f0660739#.ypz9yme5a, Last updated 16 August 2016. 
...
 
Further articles in this series:
 
"The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency"
 
Part 0 -
Part 1 -
Part 2 -
Part 3a -
Part 3b -
Part 4 -
Part 5 -
Part 6 -
Part 7a -
 
"The intelligent investors guide to Particl -"
 
 
Full disclosure/Disclaimer: At time of original writing I had long positions in Ethereum (ETH), Shadowcash (SDC), Iconomi (ICN), Augur (REP) and Digix (DGD). All the opinions expressed are my own. I cannot guarantee gains; losses are sustainable; do your own financial research and make your decisions responsibly. All prices and values given are as of time of first writing (Midday 30th-Dec-2016).
 
Second disclaimer: Please do not buy Shadowcash (SDC), the project has been abandoned by it's developers who have moved on to the Particl Project (PART) (www.particl.io). The PARTICL crowd fund and SDC 1:1 token swap completed April 15th. You can still exchange SDC for PART but only if it was acquired prior to 15th April 2017 see: https://particl.news/a-community-driven-initiative-e26724100c3a for more information.
 
Addendum: Article updated 23-11-2017 to edit references to SDC (changed to Particl where relevant to reflect updated status) and clean up formatting.
submitted by joskye to Particl [link] [comments]

The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 3a - The value proposition

*Introductions: I'm joskye. A cryptocurrency investor and SDC holder. *
...
Hi again. This is the third part in our ongoing series on how to trade better and determine intelligent investments in cryptocurrency for the future.
In part 3 I will now discuss Cryptocurrency valuations, price metrics and identifying coins of value, worth holding.
...
What makes a coin worth holding: The value proposition
What makes anything worth holding? How much of themselves is a person willing to put into it - that's how much.
Cryptocurrency is largely driven by faith. It is a speculative enterprise i.e. people mostly put money into cryptocurrencies believing they will go up in value in the future; their plan to sell at a higher price when it does.
Currently most cryptocurrencies serve no function than being currencies in themselves. Unfortunately these currencies are largely not recognised by governments, most institutional investors or companies are legitimate stores of value or legitimate currencies of transaction. As such legislation and rules around the world regarding them vary considerably and are often absent.
There are very few cryptocurrencies that have legitimised backing, are insured or supported by enterprises that are insured for their loss and essentially there is little to protect you if you lose money through them.
So why do people bother putting money into cryptocurrencies it in the first place?
If the present and future value of a cryptocurrency is driven purely by speculation then you are essentially gambling by putting your money to buy that coin and joining the pool of other gamblers who are doing so. You are essentially joining a ponzi scheme and waiting game hoping you've gotten in early enough and convinced enough people to buy more of the asset you hold at slightly higher prices until a price is reached that you can cash out at (or until that thing becomes so big that everyone starts using it as their store of value).
This type of dynamic essentially underpins the mentality of most investments and trades i.e. buy low and sell high. I'd like to add buy early for investors since buying during a low in an already established asset may be setting yourself up for being forced to sell at a lower low later (especially if you don't understand the fundamentals of that asset).
If however the present or future value of a cryptocurrency is driven by some service other than speculation which can attract and drive fiat currency into it's ecosystem then it is potentially valuable.
I.e. will people actually use their USD/Yuan/Euro/GBP/Yen/INR etc to actually purchase the coin in question to do something useful with it (other than gamble on it's future price).
There are some cryptocurrencies which satisfy this criteria:
...
Bitcoin
It is not a currency, it is a remittance system and store of value. It has a reputation increasingly to being seen as a digital version of gold.
Bitcoin has the cultural and historical advantage of being the first cryptocurrency. It is also still the largest cryptocurrency by a long way with the largest marketcap i.e. price per bitcoin [$952 as of writing] x the number of bitcoin in circulation [16,074,687] which is $15.3 billion. Compare to it's next biggest competitor Ethereum which has a marketcap of $700 million (i.e. only 4.57% of Bitcoin's).
Bitcoin's value proposition is that it is a store of value. It may not be able to sustain this without significant upgrades to it's underlying software.
...
Monero (XMR)
Bitcoin does not have anonymity inherently built into it's software. Therefore if you buy and sell Bitcoin especially on cryptocurrency exchanges (where user registration is required), it is possible to trace whom Bitcoin is being transferred from and to.
For this reason I see Monero as Bitcoin + anonymity. I.e. it's value proposition is as store of hidden wealth. I also believe it does not have the issues that bitcoin does namely, same level of mainstream recognition, spotlight of regulatory awareness and developers do seem to be more focused on achieving better scalability and transaction times (it already does 10-20 minute verification time vs bitcoins 1 hour) which gives it better potential as a currency presently compared to Bitcoin.
-This sort of market cap dwarfs gold. However this type of up-scaled usability will not occur until the transaction verification times are much faster (nanoseconds) and the protocol is enhanced to cope with much larger transactions volumes and frequency at that speed; We are a long way off that.
I do believe fiat stored in Bitcoin will gradually transfer into Monero boosting it's value. I am not sure Monero though can presently bring fresh fiat currency (USD, Yuan etc) into it's ecosystem beyond outsider speculation in future price.
It is not unique in it's function or potential value proposition. My warning about holding Monerofor the long term is that it has competition for it's function not just from Bitcoin itself but from other anonymous coins such as Zcash, DASH (which provides instantaneous settlement) and SDC. Perhaps more importantly, Ethereum (ETH) is now planning to implement optional anonymity (via zSNARKs) in it's transaction network; if it does when combined with Ethereum's own functionality and well defined development roadmap (that will likely several second verification times in late 2017) would render XMR potentially redundant.
...
Ethereum (ETH)
The value proposition for Ethereum is that it allows for complex, trustless settlement systems to be built on it. This is a huge deal because the scope of applications is wide and although the technology needs to mature (to support greater transaction volume, frequency and more secure functionality) the sheer amount of fiat such a platform could attract through conversion of traditional centralised settlement and contract services to more secure decentralised platforms is very huge.
...
Shadowcash (SDC)
The value proposition is a double escrow, fully anonymous, decentralised privacy platform which incorporates private chat, private marketplace and secure, trustless private settlement system into one platform that is fully integrated into it's own blockchain.
Shadowcash already has multiple features that make it an excellent store of value: Low coin supply, potential for great demand, near instantaneous transaction verification times, ability to earn interest for simply holding it.
Shadowcash is incredibly easy to use and is heavily focused on usability. This is absolutely essential to it's end users: customers who seek convenient easy and speedy secure anonymous transaction. This will be a dream come true for traditional users of darknet markets.
To explain why lets elaborate on traditional darknet markets where in order to transact anonymously you have to:
1. Download the TOR browser. 2. Learn how to use it. 3. Buy XMR or Bitcoin. 4. Learn how to transact with these coins *safely* (yes this is still an issue with XMR in spite of it's built in privacy). 5. Learn how to and where to find reliable secure darknet markets. 6. Create accounts on these markets to access them *and* 7. Have faith that the websites and the highly centralised (and thus much more vulnerable) servers hosting those markets you use will not get shut down, not disappear with your money and not betray your transaction details and potentially identities to the authorities should they be infiltrated by them. 
Whereas with Shadowcash's market place this process will become:
1. Download the Shadowcash Umbra client (https://shadowproject.io/en/gettingstarted) 2. Buy some SDC on an exchange and transfer it to your Umbra client. 3. Browse the Shadowcash marketplace and transact securely, safely and anonymously. 
In summary I think Shadowcash can be a very useful application as a privacy platform for private communications and transactions.
...
ICONOMI (ICN)
Those two points constitute it's value proposition. By nature of the way it works it has an easily identifiable P/E ratio based on the amount used to create the fund ($10.5 million) against the current value of that fund based on it's
...
Summary lessons
The first rule in investing or trading in a given cryptocoin is deciding if it has a value proposition:
1. *Can it draw fiat currency (USD, Euro, Yuan etc) in such a way as to give it a valuation that is fully independent of pure speculation?* 2. *Is it unique?* 3. *Is it rare?* A limited supply with a low or negative inflation rate will lead to increasing price as demand goes up. 4. Are there significant risks associated with the value proposition? 
In the next article I will cover lesson 3b: Price metrics and valuations. It will be much shorter I promise but equally informative and we will cover topics such as price determination, impact of speculation, price manipulation, whales and their impact and the impact of bitcoin on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Finally just to really hammer it home; why am I posting this on the Shadowcash subreddit?
It is because Shadowcash is the best cryptocurrency investment of 2016 and I believe it will be again by March 2017.
...
References:
1. Crypto-Currency Market Capitalizations, https://coinmarketcap.com/, Last Checked 30/01/2017 2. What is the value of all the Gold in the world? http://onlygold.com/Info/All-The-Gold-In-The-World.asp, Last Checked 30/01/2017. 3. ICONOMI Cryptocurrencies Index (ICNX) 21 December 2016 Rebalancing, https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-cryptocurrencies-index-icnx-21-december-2016-rebalancing-transformation-into-iconomi-8e31e48493ab#.sptgljv1c 4. ICNx trend chart, https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-cryptocurrencies-index-icnx-30-november-2016-monthly-rebalancing-update-3402866243d9#.kw7g4fqcd, Last updated 30th Nov 2017 5. Shadowcash (SDC) - The billion dollar baby!, https://medium.com/@paradox_/shadowcash-sdc-the-billion-dollar-baby-6b86f0660739#.ypz9yme5a, Last updated 16 August 2016. 
...
Further articles in this series:
Part 1- - The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 1 - Sell your profits and make back the principle ASAP. https://www.reddit.com/Shadowcash/comments/5l0heb/the_intelligent_investors_guide_to_cryptocurrency/
Part 2 - - The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 2 - FOMO My friend, My enemy. Make fear of missing out, work for you. https://www.reddit.com/Shadowcash/comments/5l67rn/the_intelligent_investors_guide_to_cryptocurrency/
Part 3a - - The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 3a - The value proposition https://www.reddit.com/Shadowcash/comments/5lhh6m/the_intelligent_investors_guide_to_cryptocurrency/
Part 3b -
...
Disclaimer: All prices and values given are as of time of writing (Midday 08-Jan-2016). I am not responsible for your financial decisions, nor am I advising you take a particular financial position. Rather I am sharing my experiences and hoping you form your own opinions and insights from them. Full disclosure: I have long positions in Ethereum (ETH), Shadowcash (SDC), ICONOMI (ICN), Augur (REP) and Digix (DGD).
submitted by joskye to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

* Ethereum vs Rootstock [RSK] - (Smart Bitcoin) - YouTube URGENT WARNING!!!! BITCOIN & ETHEREUM SCAMS ON YOUTUBE ... WOTOKEN SCAM COULD CAUSE BITCOIN LITECOIN and ETHEREUM DUMP?? crypto trading, news, ta, analysis PlusToken 800,000 Bitcoins, Millions of Ethereum Lost  SCAM Report #911 Ethereum Scam Whale Alert, Bitcoin ATM Marktführerschaft & FC Barcelona Fan Token Erfolg

Rootstock, a P2P platform based on the block chain that implements smart contracts using the capabilities of Ethereum with the transparency and security of the bitcoin network, is negotiating with the World Bank and some Latin American banks to provide microlending for the unbanked, according to the International Business Times.Rootstock hopes to give banks the means to issue loans from smart ... Rootstock (RSK), the first Bitcoin smart contract sidechain, has announced that 10% of all Bitcoin miners are now securing the RSK blockchain. This makes RSK extremely secure since that is a tremendous amount of hashing power. Smart contracts are a major advancement in the cryptocurrency and blockchain technology world. They allow users to enter into conditional agreements and lock up a ... Yes yes, Ethereum is better than Bitcoin. Ethereum is better than Litecoin. bla bla bla. How a pre-mined scamcoin piramid scheme PUMP AND DUMP can be better than Bitcoin and Litecoin ?? Guys, I will repeat. There are only 2 "REAL" crypto in the world -> BITCOIN and LITECOIN. The rest are just pump and dump scam coins to make some whales rich ... The Rootstock Infrastructure Open Standard is an entire new infrastructure network built on top of RSK.Thus, the team behind RSK does not only offer smart contracts on Bitcoin but also something akin to Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud. All offered services are built and used from the development community, powered by their RIF token (Rootstock Infrastructure Framework). RSK (formerly known as RootStock) looks to improve the Bitcoin ecosystem by providing a platform for smart contracts directly on the bitcoin blockchain. Instead of requiring a hard fork, however, the company has found a workaround by creating their platform as a sidechain and building an inventive system to handle smart contract execution with bitcoin instead of requiring conversions to other ...

[index] [50402] [33198] [6610] [21943] [17159] [7948] [16215] [2083] [17117] [7577]

* Ethereum vs Rootstock [RSK] - (Smart Bitcoin) - YouTube

Heute sprechen wir über folgende Themen: Ethereum Scam Whale Alert, Kurant erlangt Bitcoin Automat Marktführerschaft in Europa & FC Barcelona Fan Token Erfolg. #Bitcoin and altcoins are going absolutely insane right now! Mainstream media suddenly bullish on $BTC!? Brand new cryptocurrency scams, JPMorgan reportedly ... ethereum hard fork scam team, apple losses, and more! Sign up with coinbase. buy or sell 100 dollars in crypto currency and get 10 dollars of bitcoin for free with this link to coinbase. #Bitcoin rejected at major resistance!!! Are we do for a massive #BTC correction? Warning: brand new crypto scam. Don’t be fooled! Digital Futures interview,... The Ethereum Code is A SCAM - Honest Review! My Blog - https://www.tradingwithpaul.com/ My FB Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/747741802080178/ In thi...

#