I'd love to see how blockchain tokens are any easier to move than blinded bearer certificates. A decentratralised database provides no benefit in this case.
I don't have a particular horse in this race, just find Bitcoin-as-infrastructure fascinating. If the assets the coloured coins represent would be denominated (and traded) in BTC, it wouldn't mess up incentives.
-
-
Some knowledgeable people think different...https://twitter.com/pwuille/status/981868137741258752 …
-
That's why I said denominated in BTC. Also since Bitcoin is permissionless if there exists such an incentive attack it will happen sooner or later and dissuading legit use cases is probably not the best nor strongest defence.
-
Not sure what you mean by 'denominated in BTC'. I don't think it is easily exploitable as an attack but seems to be a reason to discourage that path. I don't have any deep knowledge about that matter anyway.
-
I mean that for each coloured coin transaction there is a counterparty transaction in BTC ("going the other way").
-
I don't think I follow. How would you restrict transactions involving only the colored coin or trading between issued assets?
-
You (ie. the lower-level chain) can't, the cc implementator can. I'm just exploring how you can make a well-behaved cc implementation for assets. This is in no way a claim that all cc are legit, just that it can be and that it can make economic sense to do it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.