Data Consistency, Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), Anonymity, Performance are a few of the things that we require of our payment system (some would argue Verifiable History, but that might be at odds with some of the previously mentioned).
Our current AT2 implementation seems to have have BFT, Verifiable History, maybePerformance and maaaybeData Consistency.
DBCs in our system seem to have most except maybe Verifiable History (currently unsolved AFAIK, but might be possible).
Phew. Unfortunately, when it comes to âprovenâ, weâre not fat stacked at this side of evolution. We do search for exactly that, when looking for components, solutions, patterns. The entirety of it though, keeps being something unproven, until we do it.
I am one of those suckers, ugly -18,5%. OoupsâŚ
Anyway, I am going to continue buying at these levels and I dont mind this unrealised loss too much⌠I will sell first 1% of my stash at 1,15$, or when I hear again about MAID burning conversion to Safecoin.
In terms of price yes, but looking at volume itâs a bit of a different story
Looking at 1h time periods, the pump was 5.577 btc volume, dump was 0.268 btc volume. That means there was a lot of buying and not much selling (about 20x more buying than selling).
Not sure if, beyond public test nets consistently releasing and succeeding, MAID will ever go much higher than this, so in my many years of experience with watching this token, itâs best to not panic buy until then. The other exception (and still donât do it in a panic) is crypto funds overall finally spilling over from larger projects into this oneâand somehow staying at a new floor decently above 10 centsâjust from the sheer volume of trades increasing or what have you. Which of course could happen soon, though I think the latest BTC rise is because of the Silk Road situation, dunno.
Thanks for providing that visibility. Iâm curious about two things:
Can you say more about this? I suspect Performance in context here should be okay, but Data Consistency?
Is the plan to eventually replace AT2 with DBCs? Otherwise, the fact that DBC doesnât have Verifiable History shouldnât matter if it is based on AT2 and so gains that property through the latter, i.e., DBC-based money is only issued upon deposit of the same amount of AT2-based money.
A side project that @oetyng is working on uses some of AT2 to get consensus on DBC spending. So the client asks for the re-issue from the majority. It means true anonymity but zero verifiable history. This seems to be the trade-off we are seeing. What we are also looking at is some mechanism to prove coins cannot be created and max number is set. These parts are not so easy but potentially required.
There is a half way hous, so we say no coins are available until a point where we know many folks are involved in the network, elders belong to many different parties and then just decide, now coins are all available. Itâs all side projects, but at the same time very interesting. I like the idea of DBC for privacy and efficiency (the client does most of the work and banks/mints do very little). It has great promise, but open to manipulation by the creators right now, fixing the latter part is a task we are working on. Lucky we have options there.
The community will be very important in probing this part as itâs likely we have a simple easy to understand method of anonymous cash so close.
Failing all that we have pure AT2 with blinded histories. Itâs not a bad back stop.
None of this delays testnets though. DBC could transform the economics of the network in terms of efficiency and privacy. We will find out quickly though.
Would you please define or point me to a definition of âVerifiable Historyâ?
I think of DBCs like cash. More correctly like money, (intrinsic value as opposed to fiat fraud paper) but bear with me for sake of argument:
If I spend cash, itâs âanonymousâ by default. Nevertheless, with many merchants, Iâll have the option of a receipt. Extending the analogy to SAFEâs data permissions, the cash transaction is like private data, whereas adding a receipt creates a permanent record like public data. Thatâs not to say the receipt record would necessarily be public, only that the receipt record would exist at least in the userâs private wallet.
Could there be any benefit to DBCs with private/public optional transaction records, or does âVerifiable Historyâ imply public and complete visibility of all transactions as bitcoinâs blockchain has?
Good questions @anon57419684, and no need to apologize for asking or not knowing
Would you please define or point me to a definition of âVerifiable Historyâ?
The property I intend to describe is for any user to be able to cryptographically verify the integrity of the monetary system.
For example, with current AT2 system, all debits and credits could theoretically be traced back to the genesis. That is also the Achilles heel of the system, since logging Elders can map out a whole lot of transaction information.
I think so, definitely yes. There are many use cases for completely transparent finances.
It could. But it has not so far been the necessary implication, in my mind at least.
Yeah, sure. Itâs actually just about the current implementation. It seems not terribly big of a deal to get data consistency in place there.
Edit: Sorry, maybe saying more would entail somewhat of an explanation⌠AT2 builds upon exchange of events, operations. When any party is out of synch and does not understand an incoming request, they could simply request any events not seen, which would bring them up to the required state to handle the request. This here is where we are currently not 100%. There seems to be edge cases where we do not get all parties up to speed. But itâs a relatively trivial problem to solve.
Re:traceability of pure AT2, I think at even after implementing AT2-DBC to gain anonymity it may be useful to keep pure AT2 as an ecological and performant âblockchainâ that can be used for use cases where traceability/transparency is needed. It wouldnât have safecoinâs monetary value of course, but rather some sort of transparent ledger service.
Price holding nicely after that pop/dump/pop back. Itâs actually a real change from the months of stability around 0.1 USD even while other things popped. Still one of the best risk rewards in crypto ATM.
Por que no los dos? Could there not be an AT2 backbone, and a transaction type that would convert a safe balance into a DBC? (as well as a DBC transaction for an authorized spend to an AT2 balance?) E.g. for this portion of SAFE, want anonymity and need performance, so send the SAFE to a mint to get a DBC? And the mint would use a bulletproof on the minting transaction that would make creation of extra SAFE impossible?
