Quote from: RationalSpeculator on August 01, 2013, 02:13:40 AM

Quote from: dacoinminster on August 01, 2013, 01:43:20 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on August 01, 2013, 01:40:08 AM

Quote from: dacoinminster on August 01, 2013, 01:37:54 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on August 01, 2013, 01:35:37 AM

I have debated whether or not to respond to this thread, but it seems like you are getting a lot of positive reviews so I am writing to provide some alternative opinions and explain how / why this system will not work. I do this as a favor to you because I previously paid people on this forum over $1200 to show me where I went wrong with some of my early idea on how to create GoldCoins. Reading and responding to your paper represents a significant investment of my time into your ideas and I am providing my feedback for free.

The #1 problem with your system is that it is not decentralized and therefore using the blockchain only increases costs while providing little benefit. The number of times you mention relying on 'trusted' parties is entirely against the ethos of trust-free currency. The mere possibility of a 'bank run' shows the shaky foundation. Once you depend upon 'trust' and 'issuers' then you might as well use a system like egold... and we all know how that turned out. For that matter, you could use Ripple!

I would like to address some major economic fallacies:

1) Depending upon a public oracle for pricing information is not economically valid means of facilitating trades in your GoldShares vs GoldCoins market because it fails to consider that GoldShares and GoldCoins are entirely different things in the economy and valued by individuals uniquely and independently from Gold even if the price is highly correlated.

2) Assuming that controlling the supply instantly controls the price. The FED has doubled the US money supply but prices still haven't factored this in. Next, this GoldShare supply is regulated by an external feed from an entirely different market. Note how different prices are between BitStamp and Gox and they are trading in very similar assets GoxBtc/GoxUSD vs BitStampBtc/BitStampUSD. Why can't BitStamp arbitrarily operate their exchange based on a Mt. Gox feed? The reason is something fundamental: all exchanges of value at all times must be based upon voluntary consent. Historical price data (even just milliseconds old) is never a valid substitute for voluntary exchanges by people making an assessment of the value of the assets being traded. Allowing a 3rd party to 'price fix' something via inflation/deflation is exactly what FIAT money is.

3) You have apparently failed to address all of the competing ideas in your white paper or participate in community discussions on how to create peer to peer exchanges and crypto-assets like GoldCoins. If you had you could have saved yourself a lot of time.

Now that I have said all of this, I would encourage you to read the BitShares white paper and then come back here and explain where I have missed something because I believe that more minds dedicated to the problem will result in better solutions. In summary, I have also created BitGold that can be traded against BitBTC and does everything your system attempts to do with the following differences:

1) No trusted oracles or external data feeds
2) No trusted parties at all (entirely trust free)
3) Pays dividends
4) Enables trust-free put/call options against any BitAsset
5) Addresses scalability issues with Bitcoin.

I think perhaps you are replying based on the previous version of my paper?

Nope, the most recent paper.

OK - because the concept of "GoldShares" are from the last version - I dumped that idea for something simpler in the specification.

I have followed your work on BitShares with great interest, but as you can see, I'm taking things in a different direction

Thanks for your thoughtful input.

I'd like to see you address bytemaster his, on first impression, strong valid criticisms. Your response to just say 'I do different, thanks for your input' scares me away.

Cool. Let's see what I can do:

His #1 concern is centralization, but my plan is no more centralized than bitcoin, other than that I have a fundraiser at the start. I think this comes from a misunderstanding of a concept from my earlier paper.

As for the economic concerns:
1) Seems to be based on the earlier version of my paper
2) Seems to assume that one cannot control prices by controlling supply. I believe that is false. While the fed has indeed printed a lot of money, they could drive the value of the dollar to zero if they wanted to print billions of dollars and give them to every person on the planet.
3) Is about other methods of accomplishing this, such as his, which I have looked at enough to know that I didn't want to go that direction (However, I have the highest respect for bytemaster, and I know that he is working on some cool stuff)

Does that help?