From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WX6CS-0007yK-3w for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:50:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of pixodegames.com designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.49; envelope-from=flavien.charlon@pixodegames.com; helo=mail-la0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WX6CQ-00088B-N4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:50:44 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id mc6so4437738lab.8 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:50:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=F8mh5CRkIXxBLzdEcpYoW7GO0+mrVBT3ZorKnv04Dr0=; b=encBrZW6g6cnT38ngdueLFMktTgS2t3MjvqXm8umoo0LPAAHabo6Qz7wayDMBsbS72 +8J3jX4IbDNTuTTVgxCgP2ihJLV2zWH2Ss5KPg6/ZRTJ/GJy1y/3+rc7HOaLbs4YFs4J S4RoJduSNf3c78C4JCZ6xrv4DHWlO5sDHWVEq1xjkHVH7JQbtaWf8UUgaa24Y3Cwdy20 BnRtSysQ6OElU1ZFGYhPOa2XGTUBtWPcbXV2BRaODzxv8nEk4x13w11GbDlx2JNID7iA wMqAGiH8zgihNcj7NUKa8Iorp6EcubiqQaD+iLnMldOXYPIc7vZsJgHmkvmMb/OFSGVm 3FTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnEg4g1BdWCeQsduhFrU8rKUmSzlc0MDDwKx4gVxhG1Qtb8KiFWrfxNDWyTKPug46oY/Pq X-Received: by 10.112.186.98 with SMTP id fj2mr393449lbc.54.1396864235971; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kk4sm11563990lbb.22.2014.04.07.02.50.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u14so4495024lbd.19 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:50:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.115.133 with SMTP id jo5mr159937lab.54.1396864235456; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:50:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.185.230 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:49:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [82.127.2.238] In-Reply-To: <5341E1FF.7080204@monetize.io> References: <5341E1FF.7080204@monetize.io> From: Flavien Charlon Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:49:55 +0100 Message-ID: To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34dd08ddb7e04f670cc8a X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM SF_NO_SPF_SPAM X-Headers-End: 1WX6CQ-00088B-N4 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:50:44 -0000 --001a11c34dd08ddb7e04f670cc8a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks for the feedback Mark. > (1) there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging information if it is not validated Sure, there is a good reason to include it in the blockchain: so that clients don't need external information to recognize colored coins. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "not validated", in that proposal, the tagged transaction is the authoritative source of information. > that just bloats the block chain 9 bytes is much less than what Mastercoin and counterparty are doing (certainly under the 40 bytes allowed). > Have you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here? Yes I have seen it and find the padding quite clumsy and unintuitive. A more general solution is the one I described in my original post, where the color value is entirely separate from the satoshi value, and encoded separately: if you have to have an additional "padding" value to calculate color_value = satoshi_value - padding, you might as well have color_value directly, independently from satoshi_value. But I don't even think it is necessary: > (2) And needing a capital of 54 btc for a million shares is totally unacceptable. An easy workaround is to have various scales, the same way you have $1 bills, $5 bills an $10 bills. I don't see that as a big problem. That way the protocol is more lightweight and simple. Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540 satoshis) become part of the capital of the company, and can always be recovered by uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is acceptable. Best, Flavien On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On 04/06/2014 01:59 PM, Flavien Charlon wrote: > > Do you think this is the right approach? > > No, I'm afraid it has significant flaws. The two chief flaws are (1) > there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging information if it > is not validated - that just bloats the block chain, and (2) you > shouldn't be using fixed increments for share sizes either. It's not > future-proof as the minimum output size changes based on the minimum fee > (currently 540 satoshis, not 5,400, and it will float in the near > future). And needing a capital of 54 btc for a million shares is totally > unacceptable. > > Flavien, I know that I've seen you on the Bitcoin-X mailing list, where > these issues have been mostly worked out: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoinx > > Have you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here? > > https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/wiki/colored_coins_intro > > Kind regards, > Mark Friedenbach > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a11c34dd08ddb7e04f670cc8a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the feedback Mark.

> (1) there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging informati= on if it is not validated

Sure, there is a good re= ason to include it in the blockchain: so that clients don't need extern= al information to recognize colored coins. Also, I'm not sure what you = mean by "not validated", in that proposal, the tagged transaction= is the authoritative source of information.

> that just bloats the block chain

9 bytes is much less than what Mastercoin and counterparty are doin= g (certainly under the 40 bytes allowed).

> Hav= e you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here?

Yes I have seen it and find the padding quite clumsy an= d unintuitive. A more general solution is the one I described in my origina= l post, where the color value is entirely separate from the satoshi value, = and encoded separately: if you have to have an additional "padding&quo= t; value to calculate color_value =3D=A0satoshi_value - padding, you might = as well have color_value directly, independently from satoshi_value. But I = don't even think it is necessary:

> (2) And needing a capital of 54 btc for a mi= llion shares is totally unacceptable.

An easy work= around is to have various scales, the same way you have $1 bills, $5 bills = an $10 bills. I don't see that as a big problem. That way the protocol = is more lightweight and simple.

Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now = 540 satoshis) become part of the capital of the company, and can always be = recovered by uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense,= so I think it is acceptable.

Best,
Flavien






On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mar= k@monetize.io> wrote:
On 04/06/2014 01:59 PM, Flavien Charlon wrote:
> Do you think this is the right approach?

No, I'm afraid it has significant flaws. The two chief flaws are = (1)
there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging information if it is not validated - that just bloats the block chain, and (2) you
shouldn't be using fixed increments for share sizes either. It's no= t
future-proof as the minimum output size changes based on the minimum fee (currently 540 satoshis, not 5,400, and it will float in the near
future). And needing a capital of 54 btc for a million shares is totally unacceptable.

Flavien, I know that I've seen you on the Bitcoin-X mailing list, where=
these issues have been mostly worked out:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoinx

Have you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here?

https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/w= iki/colored_coins_intro

Kind regards,
Mark Friedenbach

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--001a11c34dd08ddb7e04f670cc8a--