Messages

#b) the Unlocking Limit.  As a result, the market will be frozen to any trades.  To be able to trade within the market, a trader must offer a price that brings #c) percentage change (absolute value) lower than 3.5%.  In other words, this trader must offer a price better than $270 - $290, or else his trade won't go through.  $270 because in absolute value terms its still abs(-3.5%). 
Since everyone else will be frozen out of the market, unless they can offer a better bid/ask that will bring the absolute value %percentage change lower, in this situation the incentives are offered so that someone will be able to profit if purchased BTC at a lower price. They are guaranteed a checkpoint to cash out. If someone offers a price higher that does not bring the last transacted price %change lower, then the trade is rejected by the code. Speculators have to trade within this declining %percentage window, which gets incrementally smaller with each trade.

The person who buys at the lower price will only be able to profit if they can sell later to someone else. That's not an arbitrage opportunity, so actually there's no guarantee of a checkpoint to cash out. The person who buys at the lower price is taking on risk and betting that more speculators will come in the future (more may not come, so the window may or may not get smaller).

Every speculator trades in expectation that they will profit in the future.  The mere statement that a person who buys in this LMSR pegged market is taking a risk that will speculators may not come occurs in every other single market as well.  When you buy your house, your speculating that you will be able to sell it for a higher value than when you purchased.  But there are numerous occasions when a person was unable to sell.  Price is only the last trade that buyers and sellers agreed. 

Its true when locked that the LMSR-pegged market can be driven by the offsetting trader who got in before.  But it also allows for outside traders to come in, only if their trade moves to reduce the locking limit.  An outside trader may want to chase the locking limit because its a moving target from which they can profit from later in time if it is still locked.

[/quote]

The person who buys at the lower price will only be able to profit if they can sell later to someone else. That's not an arbitrage opportunity, so actually there's no guarantee of a checkpoint to cash out. The person who buys at the lower price is taking on risk and betting that more speculators will come in the future (more may not come, so the window may or may not get smaller).

What drives expiring contracts to converge on the spot price is delivery arbitrage. In the non-expiring scheme you describe, there is no delivery arbitrage, and thus no real reason for the price to converge to the peg. In that aspect, it is similar to the first version of BitUSD, which relied on self-fulfilling expectations to drive the peg. The later version of the peg mechanism is based on a repurchase agreement. The repurchase agreement incentivizes sellers to come back later and place bids; without it, potential buyers would always be wondering whether or not they'll be the last buyers.

This is a fair critique.  I don't believe its the same as Bitshares's BitUSD in the same sense a self-fufilling expectation is needed to drive the beg. There is an expectation of fulfillment here, but there is also that fulfillment of delivery (which I am loosely interpreting as profit).  So the two, bitshares and LMSR-pegged are distinctly different. In bitshares one had to hope that another trader would bail them out.  But here that trader can take actions (if they are on the right side of the trade) to unwind their position.  An eligible trader would be guaranteed settlement of their trades, and profit from when they first purchased.  That is the same as saying there is a guaranteed delivery, however it is only for a eligible few.  More speculators are not needed, only the ones that are already speculating.  Why else are they in the market?  To make money?  Well they are guaranteed a profit here. 

A rational trader will take the arbitrage opportunity, because they are the few guaranteed it, and may not have that chance in the future.  No one would take the risk indefinitely and leave their money in.  Else they wouldn't be there in the first place. 

Its been several weeks without a response, so I'll bump this again with comments on the others.  Unless you truly do have an answer? 

>  I'm experimenting with the feasibility of using LMSR for a non-expiring contract.  Effectively a crypto-asset.
> 1)   If you sell out of a contract to invest in a longer dated contract, the longer dated contract is going to be more expensive.

This expense is a result of the inferiority of BitUSD relative to USD (namely, the technical risk). My guess is that it can't be removed under any circumstances.

> 3)   Long-length of resolution period hampering effectiveness as hedge: ... This is not ideal if speculators are exposure to highly volatile assets or currencies, especially those for developing countries.

Arbitrage should make the resolution period irrelevant (except for the technical-risk-premium mentioned in #1).

1) I think you'd have to acklowdge that trading in a decentralized PM has enormous costs.  Either waiting for resolution or pulling your funds out, which would be as much as 1%.  That's ontop of the 2% cost of trading on the PM.  This is expensive.  If your attacking the Leeching problem, as one that drives prices down through competition, then you'd have to also acknowledge that centralized prediction market services will always offer a cheaper rate as well.  I think the primary problem is exchange risk (which truthcoin does solve), since we've experienced MTgox, Bitstamp, Bitcoinia type hacks.  More people are afraid of this, rather than a public voter (eg. Robert hanson and Vitalik in Groupnosis) running off with the funds, since we can always put them and their reputation on the stake in the aftermath.  Of course Robert Hanson and Vitalik may become targets of FINCEN regulations and non-compliance with Bitlicense. 

Given the cost structures of both, there will likely be both centralized PM's and decentalized PM's.  If decentralized PM's finds competition from centralized PM's, I'm advocating non-expiring LMSR as the solution for viability. 

I think Bitcoin is the Internet's store of value. I think that emerging economies (non-internet) will have to use their local currencies, no matter what.

This is the point.  I'm not sure Bitcoin solves any pressing problem if its not going to see greater adoption globally?  It's store of value is only good to a niche market (eg. dark markets).

There are many companies that do business in emerging economies like in Africa, and make 100M's in one country alone. Their problem is repatriation of funds. They can't get around central banks capital controls within that nation.  And of course they won't touch Bitcoin because of the FX market risks involved.  This is one company, in one country alone.  There are countless others in SE Asia, Middle East, South America, etc.  The US has the largest network effects.  The Chinese Yuan is coming into its own as the reserve currency.  In this case, bitcoin's monetary network effect can be disputed.  Is it meaningful enough?  3.5 Billion market cap is awfully small. 

Bitcoin stability is a problem that is stifling adoption.  It doesn't help in this next phase digitization of everything.  Remittances is one market at $1.4T.  Another market that has been neglected by the bitcoin community is commercial transactions, which is a staggering $300T.  Its as if Bitcoin is ignoring chances to increase its network effects in broader markets.  It will miss out on this if another bankcoin, Fedcoin, Paypal coin, or cryptocurrency can leverage the network effects of USD, RMB and bypass the need for bitcoin's reason of being.   Shunning the remittance market is also shunning multiples larger commercial markets.  Bitcoin is pretty useless as a bank then. 

In essence, Truthcoin does not do stablecoins.  It's costly to replenish hedges periodically and to withdraw funds before the resolution period.  I do believe these are substantial issues that Bitcoin faces.  My question mainly is what do you think of non-expiring LMSR, does it conceptually work, and does it solve these issues confronting Bitcoin?

For a guy who claims to be now silicon valley, where break things fast mentality goes, your conservative suit is strapped tight.   

I agree-- in all practicality this will be a second generation iteration.  I just wanted to introduce this that non-expiring contracts in Truthcoin is possible with LMSR. Let's say the above works... (again bootstrapping is the difficult part)

It stumbled upon me that if this were to be implemented in a Truthcoin/Augur market, this would take some wind out of the parasitic leeching argument.  I'm sure there are plenty other arguments for why Augur won't succeed on Ethereum, not in my interest talking about that.  But, why does this stop parasitic leeching? 

The parasitic argument is classically akin to the physical CD vs pirating mp3 debate back in the late 90s and early 00's.  Like votecoin owners, artists had their labour just stolen from them because their music was now easy shared via the bitcoin's precessors Napster and Bittorrent.  This problem was fatal to the music industry.  Similar to how fatal parasitic leeching is to votecoins.  What saved the music industry was a unified platform called Itunes. Its slogan even popularized this upheavel against the music industry: rip, mix, burn.  In our case its leech, feed and profit. 


I think to look for solutions to the leeching issue, we should look at the program that ended the debate. While charging the same rate as normal albums, iTunes was able to bring in more operating profit than traditional retail outlets were because of the reduction in manufacturing, distribution costs, brick-n-mortar shelve space, etc. iTunes popularized having complementary and synergistic devices, applications, and interfaces.  As iTunes retained users on their music platform I think a non-expiring LMSR market, if executed on properly, would retain value on that prediction market system.

If Truthcoin/Augur were to have non-expiring LMSR on their markets, this would keep indefinite liquidity pools in that proxy asset and thereby attract speculators and traders who want to trade on that market.  That equates to trading fees that go right back to the Votecoin owners.  Fees to authors could also be given instead to the votcoin owners.  The fiat world alone now commands billions in trading.  Then there would also be interal transfer fees as well.  At micros of the transaction fees now, with millions upon millions of daily movement, this could be like cash reserves that earn interest for the votecoin holders.  To execute on this ecosystem takes enormous foresight, planning, and coordination.  And not every company can it.

I see many uses for non-expiring (NE-LMSR) markets.  It can be used as a true stablecoin for adaption into enabling nexus-applications and purchases.  Think Bitfinex style leveraged lending, interest earning banking services that come from these margin trade accounts (especially important for the 16B a year remittance market), bond markets, bond interest rate swaps, p2p lending, and options markets.  All of this has to be integrated together for it work.  All the savings accounts have to be placed in non-expiring USD, CNY, GBP, EUR.  It also requires someone to tightly design the layer above Votecoins to keep this consciously in focus. 

The better question is in terms of stablecoins, why would anyone want to retain those coins on a parasitic contract, when their liquidity and volume is very low and costly?  Why would someone in Africa take that chance in accepting a Stablecoin USD that has very little trading and could disappear tomorrow? Will those in Africa and even the future generations ahead be like us when it comes to banking, taking nuances from the personal computer revolution that Apple started?  Will they look for a loosely closed system approach for all their banking needs because interoperability is so much smoother, user friendly, accessible and convenient? 

Its the progression from financial services into prediction market services.  I think prediction market developers should be pondering all these things if they're looking out ahead. What are your thoughts?

FYI

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-237-the-stars-that-shine

Latest Let's Talk Bitcoin discusses Andreas A., Adam B Levine, and Stephanie Murphy's opinion of Bitcoin will be the only cryptocurrency to survive. 

Summary: ABL believes there will be many different cryptos.  He in past has likened alt-coins to being different on-ramps to the highway which is bitcoin. 
                 AA believes that in the foreseeable future Bitcoin is the winner, but it will not be a winner take all scenario.  He has stated before that there will be 5 or 6 major crypto currencies and bitcoin will be the largest by magnitudes.  As oppose to seeing it as a competition between the 5 or 6, he sees them all working synergically. These other alt-coins will help fill needs are aren't appropriate for Bitcoin.  However, he does think it is possible, yet highly unlike that alt-coin will overtake bitcoin, unless it offers something drastically different.  Ethereum is one that potentially could, but they still have to much to prove and iterate.  Conclusion he is not quite a Bitcoin Maximalism but believes the Satoshi Consensus Method (longest chain) is the greatest innovation and irreplaceable feature of Bitcoin 

The Non-Expiring Market is being driven completely by "the closest peg". What is the definition of "the closest peg"?

The market that is closest to expiration, but still active to ensure that it is closest to the spot price. A non-expiring market requires a standardized list to pull from.  So a non-expiring market for USD could only pull from the question set: "What is the USD price in MM/DD/YYYY?"  Questions phrased any other way such as, "What is the USD price on Bitstamp in MM/DD/YYYY?" could not be lookup-ed for that particularly non-expiring market.

Granted there are initial difficulties with bootstrapping the non-expiring market, but this has to be balanced with the challenges with creating a tool to reinvest in the future or investing in a market 2 years from now that faces low liquidity.  Over time this would be better because of the volume and liquidity retention. 

Given the case made above for a pegged crypto-asset, here is my idea of doing so with a non-expiring LMSR market. This is a special type of market that any author can create and as four main requisites:
a)   Input prices from other contracts – basis for peg price
b)   % Unlocking Limit – small hard coded %percentage that must be crossed (eg.  50 basis points or .5%)
c)   %percentage change of last transaction- this %percentage should be decreasing with each new trade transacted
d)   price % change of trade being offered – the price change of whatever value the trader offers
The purpose of this non-expiring contract is to have a true store of value asset that behaves similarly to the pegged asset, without the need to reinvest or enter settlement (eg. BitUSD, BitAPPL, etc.), which can be costly for some people. Unlike Bitshares and Dai (or whatever that Chinese word is called on Ethereum), this non-expiring contract will offer more benefits of better liquidity and efficient pricing from using LMSR. Within this special asset class, for example the BTC/USD price, the market can be traded like any other market on Truthcoin.  The exception is that once a month, instead of going into a settlement resolution like a PM, the contract will go into a locking period.  The markets are frozen and no trades are allowed unless the list of specifications above are met. First within this locking period, the contract will perform a check to see its variance from the closest peg: the contract will borrow from the normal Truthcoin market, the soonest expiring contract for that market.  As an example, it will take the BTC/USD prediction market price that is going to expiring at the end of 08/2015, because we are in the month of August.  This will serve as this non-expiring contract's #a) price feed. Now this non-expiring contract, will take this price feed and perform a check with the last price transacted.  Let's say the peg BTC price in the 8/15 TC market was pointing at $280, and the last transacted price was $290. The contract will note that this was a #c) 3.5% percentage change. This is a high variance that is greater than the .5% as specified by #b) the Unlocking Limit.  As a result, the market will be frozen to any trades.  To be able to trade within the market, a trader must offer a price that brings #c) percentage change (absolute value) lower than 3.5%.  In other words, this trader must offer a price better than $270 - $290, or else his trade won't go through.  $270 because in absolute value terms its still abs(-3.5%). 
Since everyone else will be frozen out of the market, unless they can offer a better bid/ask that will bring the absolute value %percentage change lower, in this situation the incentives are offered so that someone will be able to profit if purchased BTC at a lower price. They are guaranteed a checkpoint to cash out. If someone offers a price higher that does not bring the last transacted price %change lower, then the trade is rejected by the code. Speculators have to trade within this declining %percentage window, which gets incrementally smaller with each trade.
Ultimately the frozen market is unlocked when the offered price brings the percentage change lower than the #b) Unlocking Limit, in this case .5%. So to reiterate, this ballooned %percentage change shrinks with each successive trade, and halts once the .5% threshold is crossed. Once this happens, the entire market resumes normal trade. 
Now because markets are efficient and if this is implemented, I don't expect the markets having to freeze often, since the casual threat is enough to keep the peg in place. The benefits of this allows for a store of value, one that can be used back in Truthcoin (I'm sure your against this, but just a thought), for the underlying contracts. This gives great ease of use in markets that use USD hedging, since authors and trader don't have to worry about hedging decisions. The same goes for remittance users and emerging market economies. They will find greater utility for Truthcoin sidechain as if it were a full-fledge retail bank.

Constructive criticisms are welcomed.  Holes in this methodology? Lot's of things still to iron out. Like why would anyone want to enter this contract at all if there is no interest offered? Let's put this discussion to another day, because in an increasingly digital marketplace, I think a USD cryptocurrency as a store of value has merits. I'm hoping that if this works out, and that it will be trivial to implement within Truthcoin. This can be your tool that your talking about.

"Random tinkering is the path to success. And fortunately, we are increasingly learning to practice it without knowing it–thanks to overconfident entrepreneurs, naive investors, greedy investment bankers, confused scientists and aggressive venture capitalists brought together by the free-market system."
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I'm going to shamelessly make a case that a non-expiring LMSR is not meaningless. One because I think not being curious or not exploring hunches is being disingenuous to creative process. We can't predict where change will come from and what will be like. Think of how many inventions came completely from accidents: penicillin, pacemaker, microwave, fireworks, WD-40, LSD, Ink-Jet Printers, Post-it notes, X-rays, Coca-Cola, Chewing Gun, Teflon, Ice-cream cones, Vulcanized Rubber, plastic, Super glue, Velcro, Stainless Steel. Think of how many of these inventions we wouldn't have if these people hadn't been spontaneously curious and followed their nose, without knowing where it would take them. These inventors were lost somewhere, physically or intellectually at one point or another. 

I'm experimenting with the feasibility of using LMSR for a non-expiring contract.  Effectively a crypto-asset. Why am I trying to achieve this? You raised that there would be a tool to help users to reinvest into contracts before or after one has expired.  There are four undesirable outcomes with Truthcoin:
1)   If you sell out of a contract to invest in a longer dated contract, the longer dated contract is going to be more expensive.  At least if these were to work just like futures.  So if someone is consistently reinvesting into another contract, they are going to be losing money progressively over time.  Not to mention, if you're a large speculator or corporation, you can't reallocate if the liquidity of these markets are fragmented in smaller dated pools.  I can at least say that a lot of treasury functions in corporations have problems with low liquidity in futures markets for energy products and metals across the board.  And if you perhaps chose to reinvest, from the magnitude of your trades, you will drive the PM price more downward than you want.  You might respond saying this is small since they will only have to reallocate once a year and that is a fair. This however can be quite cumbersome if your dealing with an portfolio of contacts that you need to reallocate.
2)   Possibility of front-running and gaming the trades with a tool:
If trades are reallocating their investments one a year, there may be some risk of other traders looking for the same entry points to front-run and drive up the market price.  Through data-mining and analytics the front-runners may see a pattern forming where the tool may start to show seasonality, where certain times of the year people are more prone to reallocate.  (eg. they may look at the period where the most downloads happened for the tool and see that 6-8 months later are when these people tend to reinvest)  So these front-runners will drive up the price, making it even more expensive than stated in #1. Not a doom and gloom scenario by any stretch, but its not optimal.

3)   Long-length of resolution period hampering effectiveness as hedge:
One of the things I'd like to explore if this could be a inconvenience is the time it takes to resolution, which only happens once a month.  This is an drawback not due to the tool, but to length of the Truthcoin resolution period.  A monthly resolution cycle means your hedge can be stuck in settle for 2 weeks or longer depending on when the contract expired. This is not ideal if speculators are exposure to highly volatile assets or currencies, especially those for developing countries. In another issue, prediction markets that use a currency hedge, will be confronted with poorly overlapping markets.  Prediction markets and its corresponding hedge will likely expire on different schedules/timetables.  A prediction market for the winner of the World Cup, may end before the prediction market for the Truthcoin/USD market. In this scenario, speculators are once again stuck, now in a currency market, an event they are not very interested in trading in.

4)   Constraints of Truthcoin as a store of value
By the discussion being thrown around, Truthcoin does not offer a Stablecoin.  Therefore Truthcoin can't be used for crowdfunding, P2P lending, and most importantly remittances.  Most of the benefits that Truthcoin offers are greatest for emerging economies because of the ability to hedge fx risk.  Some of the people in these countries like Venezuela faced a 90% devaluation of their money in the past few years. Most people don't want to use Bitcoin, but want all the benefits of Bitcoin in terms of fast transaction speeds and low fees. Remittances is one area where the most change in the financial space will happen.  One large reason, Bitcoin hasn't taken off for the unbanked is because of its extreme volatility.  A 8% +/- change, means a world of difference for people who live there. Truthcoin doesn't promise them the same sort of store of value because you will have to use this tool to reinvest from time to time.  That is a major inconvenience and an unrealistic expectation. And if there has to be education about how to use this tool on top of how to use Truthcoin, then we've already lost half the message of the benefits that come from Truthcoin. Truthcoin's usefulness will be much more if a convenience storeowner can accept a USD pegged Truthcoin, without worrying about using a tool to hedge out the risk he just took on. This would increase adoption of Truthcoin, or even Bitcoin when Truthcoin is sidechained. 

[always]

That was a really good paper and well written.  It begs a stupid question.  Or two.  Isn't it a misnomer to call continuous Combinator Markets the equivalent of stablecoins.  In these type of markets, your coin is stable until the expiration date arrives.  Then your coins are frozen until the judication period, and afterwards you will have to reinvest in another market (be it short or long-dated).  It's a derivative, or a instrument, but not a value stable coin per-say.

The price of the stablecoin-dimension should always equal the current price. See:

"Arbitrage Guarantees that PV(Forward) = Spot"
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/win-win-blocksize/

and...

https://github.com/truthcoin/www.truthcoin.info/blob/gh-pages/faq/index.md#in-some-of-your-notes-you-suggested-timelines-of-a-couple-of-weeks-for-voting-would-it-be-fair-to-say-this-wouldnt-be-suitable-to-horse-racing-etc-where-the-events-happen-very-fast-there-are-many-of-them-and-payouts-need-to-be-made-fairly-quickly

After the target date, you can sell and move on to a new dimension which references a later date.

True- that's exactly what I said.  -- eg.The price of the stablecoin-dimension should always equal the current price. -- for that time period stated--

Given by your old diagram here, in Truthcoin, a "stablecoin" requires switching from dimension to dimension to have continual stability.  I'm trying to figure out why everyone is calling it a stablecoin when in fact its behavior more like a CFD, futures/ other derivative types?  Its kind of the misplaced name because it does not have the true stability of a currency due to manual efforts needed to perform inter-trading into another dimension and the costs involved in that switch.  Yes moot point when considering a very long contract, like USD price until 2100, but even this has a risk premium associated with it, so it will not equal the spot price of USD today.  Everyone has different expectations of what the USD price will be in 2100. 

http://www.truthcoin.info/images/BitUsdTracking.jpg

Given this, I'm wondering what's the impact of having a market resolve on one day, but the USD/BTC dimension continuing onward because it has a longer resolution date, maybe a month or two later.  What happens to your funds then?  Does a trader have to wait until the last longest date is resolved to get funds back?  Is inter-dimension time differences a risk?

But I really wanted to explore this second idea, which is how to get a stable currency in a LMSR market, without the need to periodically move from dimension to dimension.  I'll come back on this with more explanation in case you don't understand what Im talking about.  But the gist is do you think a non-expiring LMSR is possible with Truthcoin/ price feed?

That was a really good paper and well written.  It begs a stupid question.  Or two.  Isn't it a misnomer to call continuous Combinator Markets the equivalent of stablecoins.  In these type of markets, your coin is stable until the expiration date arrives.  Then your coins are frozen until the judication period, and afterwards you will have to reinvest in another market (be it short or long-dated).  It's a derivative, or a instrument, but not a value stable coin per-say. 

However, the other question is more of a thought that borrows a shade from the new Bitshares 2.0 model.  Could you have non-expiring like a normal truthcoin market, where the market has to be resolved each month?  That is to say, a continuous resolution for the market will serve as a peg.  The use of this peg is to offer a settlement for say maybe 50% of trades.  So every month, 50% of the transaction, prioritized largest to least holders can get the price at what the feed says.  Then the markets still continue for the other 50%, veering off that peg price as the days pass. 

Will this work in a lmrs mechanism?  There are so many benefits of lmsr as said in this article, like shared liquidity and efficient trading...  But to have a price-stable currency in one would be a win.

That was a great interview.   Took complex And simplified for the audience.  You've done well at distilling it for the general public!  Hopefully more of this to come. 

http://www.augur.net/blog/building-a-better-lie-detector

Must say from quick read through it was a entertain analysis.  Easy to read as well.  Nice stuff augur.

"So your saying augur will accept any type of coin created on the ethereum network?"
Yep

"So will fees be determined by a base currency-- but this base currency can be anything?"
Also yes

"Will people be vulnerable to FX risk depending on the base currency used?"
No, it'd be relative to w/e currency you're using (unless you make CFD markets)

"Wouldn't this affect a votecoins payouts, (this screws up Truthcoins Game Theory) if their fees earned are depreciating/appreciating against other rewarded currencies"

I imagine branches would be able to choose what currencies they want to accept (e.g. sidechained bitcoin, stablecoin, ether).  I'd rather let the market segregate based on currency into diff. branches instead of forcing all branches to accept all currencies (which would make your questions above become serious problems)

Thanks for answering.  Clears that up.  Last question (or two) for now:  Have you started on the branching mechanisms and will that be targeted in final release?

1)  So roughly 25tps it sounds like.

2)  I have concerns about this.  So your saying augur will accept any type of coin created on the ethereum network?  So will fees be determined by a base currency-- but this base currency can be anything?  Will people be vulnerable to FX risk depending on the base currency used?  Wouldn't this affect a votecoins payouts, (this screws up Truthcoins Game Theory) if their fees earned are depreciating/appreciating against other rewarded currencies.

Hey Augur-- Do you understand my question #2?

1)  So roughly 25tps it sounds like.

2)  I have concerns about this.  So your saying augur will accept any type of coin created on the ethereum network?  So will fees be determined by a base currency-- but this base currency can be anything?  Will people be vulnerable to FX risk depending on the base currency used?  Wouldn't this affect a votecoins payouts, (this screws up Truthcoins Game Theory) if their fees earned are depreciating/appreciating against other reward currencies. 

They cannot even get atomic swaps to work on bitcoin. Transaction malleability ruins it.
I doubt bitcoin or ethereum could ever be good enough to run truthcoin.
If Jae Kwon's blockchain isn't good enough for truthcoin, then I'll make another single purpose blockchain, even better than last time.

Zack,
Why isn't ethereum good enough to run truthcoin?