I'd like to inform you that I no longer wish to be a part of coloredcoins.org and its "Community Board of Directors".
The reason for this is that this "Board of Directors", whatever it is, doesn't function.
I was listed as a team member on ColoredCoins.org web site since its creation in 2013, and back then we actually had discussions about the standardization and implementation efforts.
However, this community process was slow (too many people talking, too few working), and for this reason I and Henrik Hjelte organized a company (BitContracts.org, which later became ChromaWay) to focus the implementation efforts. However, we still were public with what we are doing, all our software was developed on github and all our decisions were documented in the bitcoinx mailing list.
In the late 2014, Amos Meiri invited us to get involved in a new standardization process.
We were excited about it, as it was a real chance to defragment the colored coins community.
However, there was no process, so to speak... They asked us about a list of requirements, which we provided. And that's it.
There was no discussion, we got no information about an upcoming "standard" or anything. We have repeatedly asked if we can attend the next meeting, but the meetings never occurred.
And nobody have ever asked my opinion as the member of the board, particularly, there was no voting process. (And what opinion could I provide if I had no information?)
Later it became apparent that ColoredCoins.org is just a PR arm of Colu. The domain name was previously used by the open-source project, and the text is now copyright Colu. Nominally there were more people involved in ColoredCoins.org, but those who weren't associated with Colu had no actual involvement.
It's worth noting that I'm not the first member of this "board" to leave it, but I just want to make things clear to avoid possible misunderstanding.
Our software (coloredcoinlib, ngcccbase, cc-wallet-core) was designed from ground up to support multiple color kernels at the same time. During the research phase we implemented five different kernels, for example. We plan to add support for different kernels/protocols according to their technical merits, regardless of "standardization" claims.
In normal language the word “standard” stipulates either that more than one actor is involved, or a market-share that is dominant. Neither seems to apply to the work on coloredcoins.org.
I was the first person to start working on Colored-coins back in 2012, and the one to start and lead it as an open-source project for several years. The work we do at ChromaWay is still open-source and you can follow our work on github. That is the way open-source should work in our opinion, you release early and can follow and contribute to the progress.
You are right, you are the first developer to work on Colored Coins, I am sad you do not want to take part in it
and i wish you good luck with your new company,
I don't have a stake in Alex's company, nor do I receive any compensation from them. My role in this space has always been a wildcard offering help to various colored coins teams. Some have welcomed my help more than others.
Coloredcoins is an idea, and idea is bigger than one standard or one protocol, its the idea of coloring coins on the blockchain to represent assets.
Coloredcoins inspired many projects, from counterparty to mastercoin, to ethereum, its community was here and was involved in coloredcoins.
This is an open discussion where different participants try different things, Alex is one of the most talented bitcoin 2.0 developers on the place, but he is very protective of his ideas and didn't even consider Vitalik ideas and spec - it happens to the best of us.
The Colu team was formed to build a business for themselves on top of coloredcoins, and they raised money from VCs to do so - they have a strong incentive to make coloredcoins an open source protocol and for it to become a standard - because their business is based on it.
They have been working for the past couple of months on spec and code base that they plan to release soon for a closed group first, and be happy to get feedback and work with everyone to improve it.
Ideally with time all bitcoin 2.0 protocols will converge to one coloredcoins standard - but that will depend on adoption by users, clients and companies that support it.
It will soon be stronger for any bitcoin 2.0 to say it is (supports) coloredcoins, since once there are clients of any of the coloredcoins companies here - they will need to be compatible with other clients here.
Building compatibility around different protocols is not difficult, bridges could be built either internally or externally.
Financial institutions data has to be connected, that's the basic idea of coloredcoins, so at one point each company will have clients that want to be connected to another company - that would require compatibility.
To sum up - what must happen will happen.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colored Coins" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoinX+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bitc...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
didn't even consider Vitalik ideas and spec
Open assets has been gaining momentum in the Bitcoin ecosystem in the past year, but it is now also reaching a critical mass of corporate supporters outside of Bitcoin (NASDAQ, Gyft, and more to come), so it would make more sense to back it instead.
Open assets has been gaining momentum in the Bitcoin ecosystem in the past year, but it is now also reaching a critical mass of corporate supporters outside of Bitcoin (NASDAQ, Gyft, and more to come), so it would make more sense to back it instead.It could make a lot of sense if it didn't have several significant flaws...
--
For example Open Assets is a much simpler protocol than CoinSpark but as a consequence there are several things it can't do. Whether that makes it better or worse depends on what the market cares about. I'm attaching (what I believe is) a fair comparison of the 5 different existing protocols for transacting assets over the bitcoin blockchain, including the 3 colored coins ones, Counterparty and MasterCoin/Omni. (Of course let me know if anything needs correcting.) Each protocol has some criteria under which it is the "winner" and others under which it is the "loser".
For example, metadata encoding.Currently ChromaWallet doesn't embed any metadata into the blockchain.However, EPOBC lets you to use OP_RETURN because OP_RETURN has no special meaning and won't invalidate the transaction.
Then, correct me if I'm wrong, but "Scalable SPV" is a wallet feature which can be used with any kernel, in principle.
"Asset tied to issuer domain", "Contract notarized in genesis" are features of genesis metadata and wallet.
"Integrated messaging" is a wallet feature.
"Decentralized exchange" can be a wallet feature.
All in all this table might be useful when you're selling your software to customer, but pretty useless and misleading when we consider fundamental properties of protocols under assumption that software can be improved, optional features can be added and so on.
BTW while we're at it, I'm not sure what you meant but "Protection from other wallets" but I'm pretty certain you got it wrong. :)
Then, correct me if I'm wrong, but "Scalable SPV" is a wallet feature which can be used with any kernel, in principle.What I mean by "asset independence" is that it's possible to track the movements of one asset while ignoring all other assets. I've changed the row title to make this a bit clearer.
Yes, I accept that. It's a comparison of the protocols as currently implemented, which is of course all the customer cares about, as I keep saying!
You are right, this was a mistake on my part. What I had meant was "allow a wallet to receive multiple assets using a single address while protecting it from accidentally sending assets to other wallets that don't support the protocol". But that's too complicated so I focused on the narrower meaning, in which I believe ChromaWallet should also get a check symbol, so I've added it.
Attached is an updated comparison - please let me know if you spot any other errors.
Then EPOBC has this feature.
For example, they want to give users an ability to transfer the assets without having any bitcoin balance in their wallet, as a need to maintain bitcoin balance seriously hampers usability. This is something I talked about back in 2012, however we implemented this feature only now.
You are right, this was a mistake on my part. What I had meant was "allow a wallet to receive multiple assets using a single address while protecting it from accidentally sending assets to other wallets that don't support the protocol". But that's too complicated so I focused on the narrower meaning, in which I believe ChromaWallet should also get a check symbol, so I've added it.In that case Counterparty and Mastercoin have this feature as well, in fact their wallets tend to use a single address for everything.
OK, aside from what I mentioned above, for EPOBC we havelibraries.
As for "available wallets", if you mean that in the sense "what user can download and run" then it is indeed Windows/Linux. But it also runs on Mac (actually I have binary builds too, just didn't bother to publish them).Also we have web and mobile wallets, but they aren't ChromaWallet but wallets built for specific applications, I'm not sure how you count that...
Oh I think I see - when matching inputs to outputs you discard all inputs from non-transfer-tagged transactions, right?
This is also something that changed at some point, no?
So in EPOBC if a null color value is mixed with a colored value, it becomes null?
Is this a change from how it used to work in the past?
It seems definitely different from Open Assets.
Anyway if this is true I am confused. Let's say we need padding = 1024 satoshis (first power of 2 over 546). We have one UTXO with 1026 satoshis, i.e. 2 asset units. We then want to split it into two parts, each of which will have to be 1025 satoshis, i.e. 1 asset unit each. So we need to bring 1024 satoshis from somewhere else, presumably uncolored.
Won't that destroy the color?
How do you create a transaction to transfer an asset without using bitcoin, in a world of anti-dust thresholds?
Yes, but they use bitcoin addresses, so that means you can send Counterparty or MasterCoin assets to a regular bitcoin address, no?
asset independence - I think it's an key criterion for long-term scalability.
My name is Maggie Lawson, and I am very enthusiastic to join the Internet of Think study program at STIKOM University. I am very interested in the world of technology and how software can help solve real world problems.
Since young, I have had a passion for programming. I started learning my first programming language at the age of 18, and since then, I have never stopped learning and developing my skills. I've worked on several small projects and worked on several applications Slot Demo Indonesia, which helped me understand the software development process from start to finish.
I am very interested in learning concepts like web development, mobile app development and database management. I also believe that collaboration is the key to creating great software, and I am passionate about working in teams to tackle complex challenges.
While at university, I hope to deepen my understanding of various programming languages, software development methodologies, and also understand how to solve problems in software development effectively. In addition, I plan to engage in group projects and practicums to gain deeper practical experience.
Outside of academia, I enjoy exploring side projects, learning about the latest trends in the tech industry, and participating in developer communities. I also believe that continuous learning is the key to staying relevant in the rapidly changing world of technology.
I really enjoyed meeting my classmates, lecturers and professionals in the software industry. Let's explore this exciting world together and collaborate to create innovative solutions.