From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC8594D for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:25:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com (mail-qk0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFB262C0 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:25:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id v123so48368898qkh.3 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:25:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eRHBqlGi62JHgxp6PHbX7NVOe8INMNTcFpRmnNn7F0Y=; b=CROQAirG5GivzynZ/+1vwdWFw4R+mVPsCaDihG43D5tJXIXEC11Je9QaSSBM/e9OmA zhlOjDBeVdqvyzO+H4GzoyRxQWc7ZD63oA0vZL456Ctcs0huNh3gWJezvOjYO+/GKMVg 7c89k3/kQY18gfXMLIZ6HDUY9GxEURYvQhhqYP/1zBQSeyGwts1TejeGRHDCsmTSwKb1 EuyzEzuX50xbONBGWtpGLaj1HMGdvMq1OzCcjlGyX4JhmLlNiH4fD8ecMdaa+QJ696ip v3KwHPXZaUCj9CkFNw5jBKEtQ1qg4zluMbetiUsh6nm001mX4/vHGxmFpkXeEP5BZRsE aMfg== 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; bh=eRHBqlGi62JHgxp6PHbX7NVOe8INMNTcFpRmnNn7F0Y=; b=Wu3XtuBoUt+9fgQZv67MM/LCCW9vrrSAMRXJ+r4QZDHEUlmSiZgmW6eVq8Xfz+UEar wIUpy6Ps1sBVaZPGIg0xiQNyXXl/TKun9j3H8m7iKwC0eiXQzGA62ogFfoXk+4TdcWqz tIRaIGKf0K40ZyJ1gnm0IXprxZnjEP3fqWN5O41OBA1qnNs0Noh8nmYPejKOqdx68neL MzqyM1vKum1xUkrH5DZ8QykryGL8G1v6xbCybFm7rCgoIXrHvfYCLvPeZLvHKLjFB8sV euqGI7DQi31faxTVCDq/9Wr1EcXsLYnBC4ptKNgJ8DbxQWCBDkd3UNMr43AWGK4xRigf 4quA== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoous/jD/0Roze8gMRXevee5r1JwJ4SjG0JxeEogw1U8pQDWVx/jOf0Uq5BLGXsznDcOz+p7o4V8uT9m8dWA== X-Received: by 10.55.207.87 with SMTP id e84mr27031197qkj.161.1470158750980; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.26.9 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201605260353.06939.luke@dashjr.org> <20160705174636.GA24068@fedora-21-dvm> <201607060122.20593.luke@dashjr.org> From: Alex Mizrahi Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:25:50 +0300 Message-ID: To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145b8e61dc0cc05391a0282 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Nicolas Dorier Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Number Request: Open Asset X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:25:53 -0000 --001a1145b8e61dc0cc05391a0282 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I would love to see an RFC-style standard "multiple-colored-coin-protocol" > written by reps from all of the major protocols and that meta-merges the > features of these implementations > We actually tried to do that in 2014-2015, but that effort have failed... Nobody was really interested in collaboration, each company only cared about it's own product. Especially Colu, they asked everyone for requirements, and then developed a new protocol completely on their own without taking anyone's input. I'm not sure that merging the protocols makes sense, as some protocols value simplicity, and a combined protocol cannot have this feature. I don't think there is much interest in a merged colored coin protocol now. Colu is moving away from colored coins, as far as I can tell. CoinSpark is now doing MultiChain closed-source private blockchain. CoinPrism also seems to be largely disinterested in colored coins. We (ChromaWay) won't mind replacing EPOBC with something better, our software could always support multiple different kernels so adding a new protocol isn't a big deal for us. So if somebody is interested in a new protocol please ping me. One of ideas I have is to decouple input-output mapping/multiplexing from coloring. So one layer will describe a mapping, e.g. "Inputs 0 and 1 should go into outputs 0, 1 and 2". In this case it will be possible to create more advanced protocols (e.g. with support for 'smart contracts' and whatnot) while also keeping them compatible with old ones to some extent, e.g. a wallet can safely engage in p2ptrade or CoinJoin transactions without understanding all protocols used in a transaction. > - in collaboration with feedback from core developers that understand the > direction the protocol will be taking and the issues to avoid. > Core developers generally dislike things like colored coins, so I doubt they are going to help. Blockstream is developing a sidechain with user-defined assets, so I guess they see it as the preferred way of doing things: https://elementsproject.org/elements/asset-issuance/ > As it stands, investors have to install multiple wallets to deal with > these varying implementations. > Actually this can be solved without making a new "merged protocol": one can just implement a wallet which supports multiple protocols. --001a1145b8e61dc0cc05391a0282 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would love to see an RF= C-style standard "multiple-colored-coin-protocol" written by reps= from all of the major protocols and that meta-merges the features of these= implementations

<= div>We actually tried to do that in 2014-2015, but that effort have failed.= ..
Nobody was really interested in collaboration, each company on= ly cared about it's own product.
Especially Colu, they asked = everyone for requirements, and then developed a new protocol completely on = their own without taking anyone's input.

I'= ;m not sure that merging the protocols makes sense, as some protocols value= simplicity, and a combined protocol cannot have this feature.
I don't think there is much interest in a merged colored c= oin protocol now.
Colu is moving away from colored coins, as far = as I can tell.
CoinSpark is now doing MultiChain closed-source pr= ivate blockchain.
CoinPrism also seems to be largely disintereste= d in colored coins.

We (ChromaWay) won't mind = replacing EPOBC with something better, our software could always support mu= ltiple different kernels so adding a new protocol isn't a big deal for = us.

So if somebody is interested in a new protocol= please ping me.

One of ideas I have is to decoupl= e input-output mapping/multiplexing from coloring.
So one layer w= ill describe a mapping, e.g. "Inputs 0 and 1 should go into outputs 0,= 1 and 2".
In this case it will be possible to create more a= dvanced protocols (e.g. with support for 'smart contracts' and what= not) while also keeping them compatible with old ones to some extent, e.g. = a wallet can safely engage in p2ptrade or CoinJoin transactions without und= erstanding all protocols used in a transaction.
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);pa= dding-left:1ex">
- in collaboration wi= th feedback from core developers that understand the direction the protocol= will be taking and the issues to avoid.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Core developers generally dislike = things like colored coins, so I doubt they are going to help.
Blockstream is developing a sidechain with user-defined assets,= so I guess they see it as the preferred way of doing things:
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);pa= dding-left:1ex">
As it stands, investors have to insta= ll multiple wallets to deal with these varying implementations.
=

Actually this can be solved without making= a new "merged protocol": one can just implement a wallet which s= upports multiple protocols.


=
--001a1145b8e61dc0cc05391a0282--