Hello Worldcoin Index,

I noticed two things about your site you might want to know about or tell me more about if there is a good reason for it.

1) Coin supplies are not calculated the same across coins.  Some are current available supply (Bitcoin) and some are listed as total supply (CLAMS).  This makes the market cap calculation inconsistent.

2) It would be nice if you could provide tls/ssl certs for your site.

Just read: https://nxtforum.org/smart-contracts/collective-decentralised-exchanges-creation-of/

We have similar interests if the goal is to make a viable interblock chain trade system.

I am exploring the possibility of using the Lighting Networks approach for a real time inter blockchain trade system, which requires a malleability fix in Bitcoin.

What altchains if any fixed txn maleability?

I agree that this can be done with side chains, and this is part of the reason for this design.  It adapts to side chains or non side chained altchains. I am of the mind thinking there will be many blockchain based networks some day each with a specific niche.  If Bitcoin was the standard P2P payment network globally, I would not be surprised.  But I would be surprised if developers decided to only build new blockchain models off of sidechains.

There is a steady stream of work saying POS variations can be strong enough to run blockchains and have a tough time believing that Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, and Peershares et. al. are just going to get made irrelevant by all the POW side chained alternatives.   So I am planning both for side chained and non side chained blockchains in the future that have their own economic systems.

Furthermore, Lighting Payment Channel based networks could provide a near real time off chain layer for smart contracts based on the basics outlined above alleviating blockchain bloat on any one blockchain that is not subject to the txnID malleability problems.

These are all contingencies I am balancing for.

Made some corrections and changed word usage from "pegging" to "pinning".


The concept is more like atomically teleporting units of value across blockchains and the intent is creating an environment for hyper distributed trade within the blockchains ecosystem.  It appears to be the least complex solution with the best security for all blockchains.  This will work for almost any blockchain except the crypto-note derivatives which may not be able to be colored though they can be time-locked allowing the value unit transferred to external chains. 

This would allow exchangers to choose one blockchain for which they can have a smaller set of protocol based security practices to work with.  At first glance it is a better way to hold tokens of value, eventually it might be a decent way to trade multiple blockchain tokens on the blockchain of the users choice.  It could also help Colored Coined adoption and development in the end.

Mods are welcome to move this post to an "Altcoins" appropriate board if this is unfit for this board.

Thank you.

You are now officially a real blockchain explorer in my book, or browser bookmarks.

The Standards committee might do well to be a seperate entity and focus on generic Blockchain standards.

Bitcoin, the p2p payment blockchain stands to do well by opening up some parts of its organization to blockchains in general as no one blockchain can do everything well.

Pick on something in my prior post and I will.

Does Reddcoins Proof of Stake Proof  / Proof of Velocity fit transactions-as-proof-of-stake?
FWIW, Factom is plannig to use the same or similar PO* model.

can you add "send raw txn" feature per coin, like blockchain.info and bitcoins?

I have been working on creating hybrid assets of various altchains tokens and came to the conclusion that colored coins (thus my post above) was the way to go as it allows for hyper decentralization of the exchange of value among blockchains.

My basic approach to a provable decentralized chain exchange is:

 1. proof of burn coins or use a multi-million year time locks
        a. in this transaction, embed the prepared colored coin issuing transaction on the other chain
        b. hash tag
 2. Issue Colored Coins on external chain with hash tag



This creates immutable cross-referenced color coins fit for value exchange on the external chain

Bitcoin would be great for this application for security purposes and audience but the metadata political limit might cause problems if used for anything other then the color coin issuance.

Using a meta friendly blockchain like Florin would allow an auditable decentralized clearing-house platform that can track coins burned and colored coins issued on external chains.

Overall this provides a platform viable as a distributed cross chain clearing-house platform and enable hyper decentralization of the altchain token and asset trade.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this approach, on whether Florin should host this application protocol or should a fork take place to host this specific application.  As Florin is a Blockchain Tech creation, its seems a fork is the norm and is a good idea when the distribution of current currency is unknown, additionally the proof of work feature while proven might not be the best fit for this application purpose.  Yet I can't think of a better name than Florin and there is enough altcoins where reduce, reuse and recycle might be a smart choice. 

Just found about florincoin in the last few weeks and was impressed by the implications in the whitepaper.

How developed is the color coin system in Florincoin?
Is it protocol compatible with OpenAssets?

Thanks Andy for speaking up about this.
We have met on IRC a few times.

> two chains in sync
  Do burned coins need to sync?  

> reorganizations on each chain

  This is a good point and I will need to look at this more carefully.
  At this point I think it would only be a problem if the coins are burned at the time of the reorganization.  Colored coins cast during a resync would be treated like the chain token defaulted, so it could happen, especially with new altcoin chains.  The planned use case is for more established altcoin blockchains.  The operator of such a practice would be holding the private keys for the chains in questions, so while a chain might reorganize the base colored tokens could be reissued.

> authenticating the transfers
  I believe I just did not make my problem and solution clear enough from the start.  All transfers are now handled by the colorcoin tracking system and the Bitcoin blockchain rules.

I am aiming for a max-min solution for chains that choose not to pin on a side chain.

I use colored coins in the example as it is the most simple to implement with.  CounterParty might be a more powerful solution for more exotic smart contracts, but the original problem was the auditable issuance of composable assets from external chains on the Bitcoin blockchain.  

The identity of the external chain burned token is pinned (the unit of account is moved) and the color coin reflects the free market value of the external tokens.  I realize now I should have made the title cross chain token pinning.  If the chain goes bust the colored coin goes bust unless it has a thriving ecosystem on the chain of colored coin issue.  

What makes this attractive for all users is the security features of Bitcoin are inherited with the issuance of the colored coin and as mentioned the assets become composable into new hybrid assets and a new industry of bean counting can begin.

Feel free to expand on the issues here I am not covering or missed. I do not usually post here but thought I should as the feedback is usually more rigorous and it seems to be the best practice with any new application ideas.

Edit:
   Changed "pegging" to "pinning"

Do any implementations or ground work exist for cross chain pinning?

I have one possible solution:

1.  Burn coins on one chain with message (hash) referencing the pegged asset issuing address on the other chain    
2.  Issue Colored Coin asset pegged to the burned txn on the other chain using the reference address.

Will this solution hold?  What problems will I encounter?

Thanks


Edit:
   Changed "pegging" to "pinning" as this is not meant to stabilize any blockchain tokens, just make them available for hyper-distributed value exchange on external blockchains.

Great Project

I recently posted in regards to something like this.  Much better fitting word abstractions for how a project like this exists in the blockchain ecosystem.

The main idea behind the analogy was to get the scope (magnitude) of reference correct and imply that multiple blockchains can be used together, affecting one another.

While one block chain may win a majority of users I do not yet have a reason to believe that people will stop making un-pegged blockchains.

It would be nice to have a standard way to derive deterministic functionality based on states of external blockchains.

If we treat a blockchain like a gear, what solutions exist that can act as a gear train framework?

We talk about oracles but does such an oracle exist that can communicate or provide a message framework across multiple blockchains?

Looking for demonstratable examples.
I would think open transactions could fit this function, but I have not seen OT demonstrated like this action yet.

An alternative would be to write a messaging protocol that could be implemented across most standard blockchains... does this already exist?


Thanks for any insight on this.

I am working a suite of portfolios solutions.

Does anyone have a trade client that provides cold storage facilities?

well said

Thanks
I have read this article before... I have no doubt he knows way more than I... but I do not understand the premise of Bitcoin and Bitcoin exchanges as driving a trade protocol forward if speed is the main feature unless websockets is the alternative.