Messages

There could be specialized software to help with this, but there's no reason to get started on that now.

What does gambling have to do with prediction markets?

Imagine two Bitcoin networks are started simultaneously. Which one wins?

If they are exactly the same, then the one with better marketing wins.

But, to zack's point, the people who wrote the original software will always understand it the best. If another version just mindlessly copies it, when problems inevitably arise, the original author has the option to destroy any network he doesn't like, while fixing his own version.

Thanks. I'm not sure how helpful that presentation is, given how old it is, but I restored it anyway.

Pardon my ignorance, but what prevents a clever marketing guy from copying Truthcoin code and setting up his own prediction marketplace?

If nothing prevents it, does that mean that winning prediction marketplace will be decided by marketing rather than technology?

The VoteCoins must be digitally-scarce to maintain their function as reputation. Similar to Bitcoin, it will be in everyone's interest to maintain this network effect: if it cannot be maintained, there will be no prediction markets for anyone.

Previously, one had to use a slow/expensive wire transfer to Ireland. The fastest way of funding was, in fact, to literally mail a check, and all kinds of annoying paperwork was required.

Now even that isn't good enough, because the company offering the service closed.

However, while InTrade existed, it did experience healthy growth over time. So I think that, unlike most other tech projects, interest isn't actually the bottleneck.

Although PMs do sometimes have a problem with low interest, I believe this is more "conflict of interest" than "lack of interest" and I am working something which explains that in more detail.

I'm going to go with the naive choice.

It disables after 5 comments, so you only have one more!

It is to discourage spam, and discourage "semi-spam" (users who are not serious).

Off-chain things are only possible because on-chain functionality exist.

LN transactions do not happen "on chain"...the blockchain has no way of knowing if they happened or not.

Hubs can self-impose rules that couldn't be imposed on miners.
It is possible to commit to promises in the channels. So if the hub breaks one of the self-imposed rules, then it loses all it's money in all the channels. All the rules can be wrapped in a merkle structure, so the proof that the hub broke a rule can be concise, even if the number of rules is very long.
Verifying proofs like this doesn't need turing completeness. Flying Fox's language is similar to bitcoin script.

Well, that sounds promising. I think it would be most useful to build this as a "layer 2", you know a "Lightning Exchange" or some such thing. Ideally, users would be able to both [1] use LMSR trades at the protocol layer, and [2] deposit into a time-locked channel with new rules.

Cryptocurrency, ie Bitcoin, gives the user the *ability* to be anonymous. It is very much like using the Internet...if you are careful, and know what you are doing, have VPN / TOR / clean computer, etc, you can use the Internet anonymously.

I personally have not read this book, but I met Kristov and he seemed to really know what he was talking about: http://anonymousbitcoinbook.com/products/e-book-anonymous-bitcoin

The only solution to front running I like so far is to do a lightning bet through a hub. Some people have been incorrectly assuming that lightning bets use more liquidity than on-chain bets. This is not true.

How do you prevent the hub-operator from front-running all of your trades?

[actually zero]

Zack, what percentage of people who "give a talk" about Bitcoin / Blockchain tech, do you think actually know anything about what they are talking about?

I would say the number is near-zero, if it isn't actually zero. Even the Core devs, or myself, could have simply have "competence without comprehension", be fooled-by-randomness, etc.

That isn't to say that we should ignore everything new, and write it off as wrong, but anyone who speaks at an Ethereum conference is probably trying to appeal to gullible people / has fooled himself.

I don't have 50 Kg of gold but I will take the bet.

The oracle is the most important, and most fragile part. Just "reusing" it is very dangerous.