[quote=“Jordan Lee, post:5, topic:2092”]Back in October I said the following in this forum about coloured coins:
"Bitcoin miners have different interests that may be at odds with interests of holders of specific types of coloured coin holders. "
The same applies to Mastercoin and Counterparty. All these additional protocols placed on top of the Bitcoin protocol are vulnerable to the fact the interests of the layered protocol may be quite different from the interests of Bitcoin miners and Bitcoin miners will control the network to suit their interests. We are seeing this important vulnerability of coloured coins, Counterparty and Mastercoin poignantly displayed here.
In regard to the question of what size OP_RETURN transaction to permit in Peershares, each implementation can choose what serves its needs best, illustrating a strength of Peershares. The network exists for and is controlled exclusively by the shareholders, so you can be sure shareholder interests will be served and not sacrificed for the interests of some other group, such as Bitcoin miners.[/quote]
The good part
Cudos to you. Peershares is the reason I sold 30% of my Bitcoin to buy Peercoin. Well, actually no. The design of Peershare is. It proved to me that there are people in the peer-space that understand not only programming but also economics. What you wrote is just so true.
Me btchng and moaning rant. Feel free to skip it.
This whole thing about Bitcoin being “free” and the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) issues. Now we got this meta frameworks that not only increases the degree of dependencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory) but also introduces questions such as: “What happens if the coin created with counterparty is so cheap that the transaction in the Bitcoin protocol is multitudes more expensive?”. Just like we have compiler error and runtime errors, I think we will discover that in crypto finance we might get “economical bugs”. I don’t get it that people just don’t get it when its so obvious.
Just to prove a point. KnC ASIC TITAN was the reason I sold 90% of my Litecoins and bought Peercoins for all of it. Litecoin is even worse then Bitcoin, because it is just like Bitcoin but even more expensive to run (and ASIC pools will ensure that it doesn’t contribute to the integrity of the network anyway).
Then we have this things with frameworks. Most programmers that I have respect for, understands how bad frameworks are. What we love is tools, utils, libs and stuff that is modularized. Extending something with something else to fit ones needs is just plain silly.
Sorry for the rant, but this is really bugging me and I see a lot of smart people with influence that simple does not get it. What I hope for, is intellectual vindication when all those coins and clones and what not, starts to degrade. Then, I hope, Peercoin will shine even more brightly and by then, it will also have stood the test of the time. My only hope is that all the crap that I see happening, won’t spill over but if happens to early, I just might.