Message-ID: <5341E1FF.7080204@monetize.io>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:23:43 -0700
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Organization: Monetize.io Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CABbpET96CboPcQeV-nKXv-CeaPiwpTKVUB_ioGPB2s3_5Y7bnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABbpET96CboPcQeV-nKXv-CeaPiwpTKVUB_ioGPB2s3_5Y7bnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
Precedence: list

On 04/06/2014 01:59 PM, Flavien Charlon wrote:
> Do you think this is the right approach?

No, I'm afraid it has significant flaws. The two chief flaws are (1)
there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging information if it
is not validated - that just bloats the block chain, and (2) you
shouldn't be using fixed increments for share sizes either. It's not
future-proof as the minimum output size changes based on the minimum fee
(currently 540 satoshis, not 5,400, and it will float in the near
future). And needing a capital of 54 btc for a million shares is totally
unacceptable.

Flavien, I know that I've seen you on the Bitcoin-X mailing list, where
these issues have been mostly worked out:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoinx

Have you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here?

https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/wiki/colored_coins_intro

Kind regards,
Mark Friedenbach