Quote from: UnicornFarts on February 07, 2015, 01:32:30 AM

I'm interested to hear what the current known devs think about this whitepaper.

Trustless contracts with cryptonote seems like an insanely good idea. Curious as to how difficult it's going to be to implement.

I don't know why the author saw fit to spam his proposal all over the place, but on one of the many threads gmaxwell replied with some issues: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=947796.msg10379309#msg10379309

My own view is that judging outcomes based on a URL is a terrible idea, and the proposal isn't trustless because the issuer has a veto power. If the judgement doesn't go the way the issuer likes, the issuer can continue vetoing it indefinitely, until it does. Miners will get the message and go along, because they're just in it for the fees anyway. I'm not even sure miner judging contracts is such a good idea, and the author seems to agree since he gives the issuer a veto, but in doing that renders the decentralization somewhat moot.

The asset trading (colored coin) portion is sort of okay, and we've discussed similar schemes, although it isn't really clear that putting arbitrary assets on a single blockchain is really a good idea. What happens when there are 10 000 assets? That means every node has to carry around 10 000 assets and asset trades on the blockchain? 100 000? Does not seem very scalable to me, nor likely to remain decentralized.

A better (scalable) solution I think is for these sorts of assets to use their own chain(s) and enable some form of cross-chain trading.