==========
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460034307.000127]-=*::: <https://ibsintelligence.com/ibs-journal/ibs-news/blockchain-passes-trillion-dollar-wall-street-test-run-by-jp-morgan-and-citi/>
U08GHKR1R says -=*[1460093782.000130]-=*::: <@U0722SJ4A>: I'm sot entirely sure how I feel about that. Weren't CDS's one of the main causes behind the 2008 meltdown?  Also, on an unrelated note, <@U07U7RCET> I was just wondering what it feels like to be called a 'Marquee Developer' by CoinDesk? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: Congrats on the Blockstream post - I think it likely that you will do great things there.
==========
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460142897.000132]-=*::: <https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4dxkte/shapeshiftio_has_been_hacked/>
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460142905.000133]-=*::: benefit of not having any state on servers
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460142955.000135]-=*::: you get hacked &gt; not a big problem &gt; rebuild, come back online
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460145174.000136]-=*::: Yes no customer funds were gone but they lost some from their cold wallets!
U076J2XV5 says -=*[1460157392.000138]-=*::: *hot wallets
U08THHS3Y says -=*[1460244660.000140]-=*::: Shapeshift has been asked to comply with the Bitlicense, not hack.
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460257049.000141]-=*::: No they said it on a reddit thread that it has nothing to do with Bitlicense
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460257171.000142]-=*::: <https://www.reddit.com/r/shapeshiftio/comments/4e2yit/update_from_the_shapeshift_team_on_the_ongoing/>
==========
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460390173.000145]-=*::: <https://ryanxcharlestimes.com/why-i-m-sticking-with-bitcoin-f718cd3519c0#.xwjq0hgqg>
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460390187.000147]-=*::: nice find <@U076J2XV5> and great work <@U07FKCHNG>
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460390197.000148]-=*::: especially liked this excerpt: ```Option #3 is to solve the hard problems in bitcoin. This is being tackled by companies like Blockstream, 21, Onename, and OB1. These companies see bitcoin as the largest and most secure foundation for the future of finance and information services. When they encounter problems, they solve them by writing code rather than pivoting to a different platform. This is the path that I am taking with Datt, with the help of my collaborators. Since the bitcoin block size is limited and has recently caused transaction fees to rise, we have started implementing a solution based on payment channels. Pivoting to ethereum wouldnt eliminate problems for Dattit would just create new and different problems, and delay our success. ```
U07FKCHNG says -=*[1460390218.000149]-=*::: thx :simple_smile:
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460400811.000150]-=*::: <http://www.wired.com/2016/04/overstock-ceo-bitcoin-messiah-patrick-byrne-takes-medical-leave-absence/>
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460400831.000152]-=*::: I wanted to highlight this paragraph: ```It provides a database that can be shared by multiple entities who have different economic or political agendas and therefore dont necessary trust each other, says Gideon Greenspan, the CEO and founder of Coin Sciences, another company thats exploring blockchain applications that extend beyond bitcoin. Theres no central gatekeeper checking all transactions that come in, saying whats valid and whats not.```
==========
U08GHKR1R says -=*[1460439362.000155]-=*::: seems folks around here are writing lots lately <@U08SZ33PF>: <http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-smarts-contracts-real-world-law/>  A reasonable post, I'd say. Did you catch this episode? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5V01d3sp80>
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460490417.000158]-=*::: <@U0ACPJ917>: nice post! <https://blog.mine.nyc/mediachain-developer-update-vii-95a8e3ba745a#.m03iz66lp>
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460490634.000160]-=*::: yep, love these updates  keep them coming!
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460490690.000161]-=*::: Well look what Airbnb is upto <http://qz.com/657246/airbnb-just-acquired-a-team-of-bitcoin-and-blockchain-experts/>
U0ACPJ917 says -=*[1460491140.000163]-=*::: thanks :blush:
==========
U07HTRSQN says -=*[1460657166.000169]-=*::: Annnnnnnd boom goes the dynamite: <http://www.backalleycoder.com/2016/04/14/the-web-beyond-how-blockchain-identity-will-transform-our-world/>
U0723KV7E says -=*[1460658974.000170]-=*::: Great post <@U07HTRSQN>
U07HTRSQN says -=*[1460659055.000171]-=*::: <@U0723KV7E>: thank you!
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460660380.000172]-=*::: Damn <@U07HTRSQN> that was a good read. :smile: Post it on medium with maybe some more usecases and it would get a lot of recommends for sure. Great work anyways :slightly_smiling_face: 
U0723KV7E says -=*[1460660581.000174]-=*::: <@U07HTRSQN> I have to agree with <@U0X9PT7DG>. Should be on Medium.
U07HTRSQN says -=*[1460660637.000175]-=*::: Why is Medium any better?
U07HTRSQN says -=*[1460660642.000176]-=*::: just curious
U07HTRSQN says -=*[1460660697.000177]-=*::: seems like a dumbbed down blog engine you don't run on your own domain/server - missing something?
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460660705.000178]-=*::: distribution
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660709.000179]-=*::: Many people here are big an medium distribution
U0723KV7E says -=*[1460660712.000180]-=*::: It adds a ton of traction to your posts.
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660719.000181]-=*::: i havent seen it in my own posts
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660730.000182]-=*::: it depends on your audience
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660743.000183]-=*::: and your own distribution channels
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660761.000184]-=*::: i just posted yours to HN <@U07HTRSQN> maybe people there will like it :simple_smile:
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460660773.000185]-=*::: actually larry you beat me to it by 1 min
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460660787.000186]-=*::: so my submission ended up upvoting yours
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660787.000187]-=*::: post it to r/blockstack :smile:
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460660788.000188]-=*::: More recommends :point_right: More reads :point_right: If goes viral :point_right: Big Brands Republish :point_right: More people know about it
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460660808.000189]-=*::: Grows &amp; helps the community!
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460660863.000190]-=*::: Using different tags would help it easier to find and you can be sure it reaches targeted audience.
==========
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660873.000191]-=*::: maybe we should move <#C07QZT3RS> to r/blockstack?
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660887.000192]-=*::: get everyone to post interesting articles to r/blockstack instead of here in slack?
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460660899.000193]-=*::: oh yeah can someone post Daniels article to <http://reddit.com/r/blockstack|reddit.com/r/blockstack>
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660904.000194]-=*::: im on it
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460660923.000195]-=*::: and <@U076LGFE0> yeah we should force ourselves to post there instead
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460660940.000196]-=*::: we might eventually want to sunset this channel
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460660952.000197]-=*::: <@U071X9XPC>: beat me!
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460660960.000198]-=*::: we should sunset <#C074S3B8S> for sure
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460660980.000199]-=*::: R/ BTC, ethereum, cryptocurrency etc would also like it 
==========
U076LGFE0 says -=*[1460661271.000200]-=*::: <@U07HTRSQN>: another benefit of medium is that it makes it easy to make collaborative blogs/publications. i cross-post to medium using <https://github.com/aarongustafson/jekyll-crosspost-to-medium>    If its bitcoin related, I add it to <https://blog.bitcoinhk.org>  and in the future if its blockstack related id submit it to <https://blog.blockstack.org> otherwise i put it on my own medium publication at <https://m.larrysalibra.com>. I learned this from <@U076J2XV5> -&gt; <https://indiewebcamp.com/POSSE>
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460661273.000201]-=*::: Well I just posted on some slacks.  People are going to really like it! 
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460702557.000204]-=*::: <@U0X9PT7DG|king> uploaded a file: <https://blockstack.slack.com/files/king/F10U6S4JH/img_20160415_120934.jpg|Told you :relaxed:> and commented: <@U07HTRSQN>
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1460702596.000205]-=*::: <@U0X9PT7DG|king> uploaded a file: <https://blockstack.slack.com/files/king/F10TW7C0L/img_20160415_121001.jpg|Slack for Android Upload>
==========
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460913808.000003]-=*::: <https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&amp;articleId=1756804>
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1460939192.000005]-=*::: Nice! Submitted to r/blockstack
U071X9XPC says -=*[1460990446.000007]-=*::: Hat tip <@U07DTHT7G> for the above article :simple_smile:
U07D44N65 says -=*[1461009600.000008]-=*::: <https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/722097042911293441>
==========
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461097310.000012]-=*::: Hey what are your thoughts on these articles?
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461097311.000013]-=*::: <http://www.coindesk.com/three-smart-contract-misconceptions/>
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461097316.000015]-=*::: <http://www.coindesk.com/turing-complete-smart-contracts/>
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099175.000017]-=*::: The author of the CoinDesk article doesn't seem to understand how Oracles work.
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099393.000018]-=*::: which article
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099408.000019]-=*::: "In other words, an oracle pushes the data onto the blockchain rather than a smart contract pulling it in."
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099415.000020]-=*::: the first one
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099416.000021]-=*::: thats true
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099422.000022]-=*::: please explain
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099441.000023]-=*::: pulling in doesnt work for consistency reasons
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099463.000024]-=*::: crypto identities have to sign data into the chain
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099465.000025]-=*::: I understand that, but oracles don't push either - at least not the one's I've read about
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099476.000026]-=*::: what systems are you referring to
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099583.000027]-=*::: I suppose the oracle could push if it's used to construct the tx
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099631.000028]-=*::: but it could also just push out signed data, like stock A is at price B on date C
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099679.000029]-=*::: and it would be up to those making bets to set up and release the tx
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099717.000030]-=*::: I think we have different ideas of what the term push is
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099720.000031]-=*::: Oracles need never know about any blockchains at all
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099730.000032]-=*::: ah no we disagree on this
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099750.000033]-=*::: Ive had many conversations about this and everyone eventually comes to the conclusion that the oracles need to be participants on the chain
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099760.000034]-=*::: the signature choice would need to be supported
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099815.000035]-=*::: ok, you *can* do this if the oracles are regularly signing documents with a certain signature choice AND you can trust that the data will be there for everyone who asks
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099852.000037]-=*::: however, generally people will not want to make the second assumption
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099923.000038]-=*::: right, ideally you'd have a handful of big oracles and do some N of M multisig
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461099935.000039]-=*::: yes exactly
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099954.000040]-=*::: it seems inevitable that everything will be signed in the not to distant future anyways
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461099985.000041]-=*::: &gt; AND you can trust that the data will be there for everyone who asks
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461099988.000042]-=*::: a piece of data will mean next to nothing without an authority signature
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461099993.000043]-=*::: this is a pretty hard requirement actually
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100027.000044]-=*::: you cant guarantee that every reader will be able to access the data
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100046.000045]-=*::: and then you have a chain train wreck
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100068.000046]-=*::: in a way the blockchain is meant to solve the reliable data storage problem as well
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100074.000047]-=*::: a chain wreck, if you will
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100074.000048]-=*::: although we dont think of it that way mostly
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100081.000049]-=*::: lol @ chain wreck
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100097.000050]-=*::: that's an interesting change from the typical position wrt information sharing
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100123.000051]-=*::: usually people say once the data is out, it's impossible to keep the whole world from accessing it
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100170.000052]-=*::: so much so that apple dropped DRM from iTunes songs in partbecause it was pointless
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100194.000053]-=*::: different incentives for holding onto different data
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100201.000054]-=*::: songs have strong incentive to be copied
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100211.000055]-=*::: <@U07KT5K6J>: youre completely right, but these statements arent actually contradictory
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100226.000056]-=*::: very very hard to *guarantee* data will be available
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100236.000057]-=*::: random merkle path traversals? why would I want a copy of them?
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100240.000058]-=*::: also very very hard to *guarantee* it wont be available to anyone, if you dont want it to be
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100248.000059]-=*::: which should make sense
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100249.000060]-=*::: IIRC, it can be difficult to get detailed stock data - it has to be licensed and isn't cheap
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100256.000061]-=*::: not unlike songs...
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100268.000062]-=*::: because people want this data and would share it
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100300.000063]-=*::: This can be summed up as such: ```It is extremely hard to guarantee everyone has access to X. It is extremely hard to guarantee nobody has access to X```
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100342.000064]-=*::: well you can't *guarantee* anything - NYC could get wiped out by a 100 foot tall tidal wave tomorrow taking the NASDAQ with it
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100356.000065]-=*::: ok, lets say 99.9% guarantee over 2 years
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100374.000066]-=*::: and yes, it should still hold up if NYC gets wiped out
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461100383.000067]-=*::: I hope NASDAQ is not keeping their data in their building :smile:
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100388.000068]-=*::: (come on, were distributed)
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100389.000069]-=*::: :smile:
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100417.000070]-=*::: The future is hard to predict
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100442.000071]-=*::: ok, but you understand the point
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100447.000072]-=*::: and the current systems are far more vulnerable than people would like to think
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100464.000073]-=*::: how many traders understand how much counter party risk is involved?
==========
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100472.000074]-=*::: ok lets put it this way
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100497.000075]-=*::: one model, with data outside of the chain, is very very unreliable
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100510.000076]-=*::: another model can allow you to have a pretty great confidence interval
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100520.000078]-=*::: my point is the current system is far from perfect yet it's running and conducting trillions in trades
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100532.000079]-=*::: and youll know if it fails because the blockchain will fail to make progress
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100541.000080]-=*::: yes but Im not going to argue with that
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100560.000081]-=*::: the existing systems dont require consensus
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100574.000082]-=*::: both the existing model and a blockchain-based model need a single point of truth
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100582.000083]-=*::: in the existing model, the single point is a centralized service
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100596.000084]-=*::: in the blockchain model, the single logical point is the blockchain, replicated across many nodes
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100603.000085]-=*::: so were playing by new rules here
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100616.000086]-=*::: if you decide that consensus is important, then you need to ensure continued consensus
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461100630.000087]-=*::: thats why data on chain is critical
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100651.000088]-=*::: e.g. is it more likely that 1) the NASDAQ will stop releasing stock data or that 2) we'll see either a world wide debt collapse or hyperinflation of USD and/or EUR? I'd bet on 2.
U074Q9Q3D says -=*[1461100711.000089]-=*::: &gt; if you decide that consensus is important, then you need to ensure continued consensus if verifying the blockchain depends on the oracles continuing to be online for any verifier, then you're effectively making the whole chain vulnerable to a very simple DDoS attack:  a malicious smart contract imports data from an oracle that's in cahoots with it, and then the oracle simply shuts down afterwards.
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100720.000090]-=*::: AFAICS, the price can only truly be on the chain if the trades are public and resolved on  the chain themselves
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100806.000093]-=*::: but even then you have tons of the normal counter party issues
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100873.000094]-=*::: e.g. just because a company in china sold you a share, normally or via a blockchain, it doesn't mean a Chinese court will hold your claim up
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461100924.000095]-=*::: claims on things like stocks require trust in vast systems of governance - systems that are often broken and corrupt
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461101001.000096]-=*::: and even what we call securities and commodity prices can be nonsense with things like naked shorts or entities printing money to trade them
U07KT5K6J says -=*[1461101660.000097]-=*::: I agree it would be nice to have prices on chain, but by this do you mean all trades would be on chain? If not, what would be the source of the prices?
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461101785.000098]-=*::: any inputs to contracts need to be on the chain
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461101805.000099]-=*::: you can decide to do otherwise, but eventually youll end up with some inconsistent mess and youll wonder what youve done
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461101821.000100]-=*::: this does put limitations on smart contracts on a chain, unfortunately
U0722SJ4A says -=*[1461101837.000101]-=*::: but the nice thing is you can request parties to add information to the chain only as they are needed for contracts
U074Q9Q3D says -=*[1461101969.000102]-=*::: you can also structure the blockchain for "partial verification", whereby the verifier may only need to validate a subset of the blockchain (in particular, only to determine the subset of the state of the chain that will affect the verifier's next state transition)
U074Q9Q3D says -=*[1461101988.000103]-=*::: IIRC Ethereum calls this "sharding"
U074Q9Q3D says -=*[1461102035.000104]-=*::: but that doesn't eliminate the problem--a small set of smart contracts can easily be constructed to depend on all of the prior chain state
U074Q9Q3D says -=*[1461102044.000105]-=*::: and thus any of their inputs (including oracles)
==========
U0X9PT7DG says -=*[1461175661.000106]-=*::: Check this out <https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/regis-the-decentralized-registry-5fb89655219a#.3ibsrx3bh>
U0ACPJ917 says -=*[1461181368.000108]-=*::: We've published a DRAFT version of the Mediachain RFC, with a formalized design: <https://github.com/mediachain/mediachain/blob/master/rfc/mediachain-rfc-2.md>
U0ACPJ917 says -=*[1461181403.000110]-=*::: feel free to open issues on the repo or reply here if you have any comments :white_check_mark:
U0ACPJ917 says -=*[1461181423.000111]-=*::: (this covers the base network design, consensus, and data structures)
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461184501.000114]-=*::: will do!
==========
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461184515.000115]-=*::: (also saw the emails, but didnt get time to go over the RFC yet)
U0ACPJ917 says -=*[1461186356.000116]-=*::: great, sorry if I ended up bombarding you
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461192697.000117]-=*::: no worries  really interested in it :simple_smile:
==========
U075BH6M7 says -=*[1461193879.000118]-=*::: Blockstack relevant; legitimate attack on Bitcoin, exists (IMO) due to Bitcoins failure to scale through sharding: <https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitcoin>
U074Q9Q3D says -=*[1461204931.000119]-=*::: In order for Peter Todd's doomsday prediction to come true, miners have to explicitly filter out non-member transactions.  This could be a soft-fork or a hard-fork, depending on how miners treat a valid block with both member and non-member transactions.  If the majority of mining power opts to reject this kind of block, then it's a hard-fork--*they are no longer executing the Bitcoin protocol by rejecting valid blocks*.  Otherwise, it's a soft-fork, and of no concern.  Moreover, if a group of users want to create a permissioned payment network, it can be readily achieved at scale with LN simply by running a specially-designed LN node that only accepts signed messages from a whitelist of keys (in fact, this would be desirable, since it would keep all their extra information off-chain).
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461247996.000124]-=*::: To me this sounds like another green address scheme.
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461248024.000125]-=*::: Its different in the implementation details ...
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461251481.000127]-=*::: <@U0ACPJ917> <@U07D44N65> posted the RFC in r/Blockstack as well
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461251485.000128]-=*::: and asked a question there
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461251487.000129]-=*::: <https://www.reddit.com/r/blockstack/comments/4ftdht/mediachain_rfc_is_ready_for_preliminary_comments/>
U0ACPJ917 says -=*[1461251823.000131]-=*::: thanks, gonna answer on there
==========
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461435534.000137]-=*::: <@U134MSRFG>: Responding to your DM here, because others might find the conversation useful as well.
U071X9XPC says -=*[1461435558.000138]-=*::: If you want to start reading papers in the blockchain space, this list is a good place to start: <https://github.com/blockstack/reading-list>
U134MSRFG says -=*[1461439832.000140]-=*::: good thinking and thanks, <@U071X9XPC>. Keep up the solid work!
==========
