Quote from: hhanh00 on October 27, 2015, 04:50:11 AM

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on October 27, 2015, 02:08:50 AM

No. It is not the same. The moral authority which define abuse in your parking lot is the law.
Every use of the Blockchain is valid as long as you can pay for it, if you don't want money to be the authority, then someone (or an oligarchy) will need to be the authority there is no other choice.

I would say, what I do with the blockchain is nobody's business. It should be noted that one can judge whether I'm "abusing or not" in their view, precisely because scripts and amount are not confidential. Which, we will agree, is more a bug than a feature. If I am abusing by what they judge a bad use case, then they should go ahead and lobbying the miners to not accept my transaction, not relay it, or rise required fees, in other words, made me pay more either by inconvenience or fees. Fee and not relaying are the most efficient way for you to make me feel the pain though.

It's simply not economical to do so. Look at the service that the OP offers. It adds a tiny overhead to the blockchain. In theory, it shouldn't be done but the effect is negligible. Now some coins want to piggy back their entire load on the blockchain, that's another story.
They probably think it's brilliant and great that they could build something out of the few opcodes offered by bitcoin. In my opinion, it is like building a cathedral out of
matches: Amazing yes, but not optimal. They should build their own system and have what they need baked in. Bitcoin should remain a distributed way to
transfer currency - not assets - not colored coins - not storage - etc. Not that they aren't valid applications, but because they use resources in a system that was not designed
to do that efficiently.

How exactly do you make reasonable self enforcing contract (terms I prefer opposed to "smart contract") pegged on a fiat currency without bitcoin ? Another blockchain ? great, but not so sure it will be as self enforced, nor as well reviewed, nor with as good ecosystem, nor with as good documentation as Bitcoin.

Quote

Not that they aren't valid applications, but because they use resources in a system that was not designed to do that efficiently.

Analog phone system was not designed to service internet. The fact that it was not designed for it does not mean that there existed, at the time, any better alternative for it. We lived with it for a long time.
Sure better way of transferring fiat thant he blockchain are theorically possible, but we are resolving problem of today with solution of today. Not problem of today with solution of tomorrow.

If indeed, your judgment is right, then just look at the match cathedral scramble by the inevitable competition who will take out the least efficient one.
Or maybe colored coin company will just pivot to another blockchain, which is also fine. But right now there are use cases where bitcoin, even if not designed for it, is the best solution.

I hope that Blockstream's Elements will provide better way of doing things. But we can't build product on top of hypothetical solution of the future.

Once again, I understand what the Dust is about now, I am not bragging because it is not good to colored coin. I'm just bragging because changing the txMinRelayFee suddently broke everything, and not only colored coins, but every piece of software creating a transaction. Not to say it should not have been done. I just want more consideration about those actions. This had more impact than a hardfork for every services built on bitcoin.