Published on: 2016-08-13T02:25:04+00:00
The discussion revolves around the Open Assets (OA) protocol, which has become stable and is being used by many companies in the industry. The goal is to make OA 1.0 the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) since it is the one people are using. The idea of creating a new "multiple-colored-coin-protocol" that merges the features of different implementations has failed in the past due to different assumptions and tradeoffs taken by each protocol for different use cases. Therefore, there is no point in creating yet another "standard" that nobody uses. However, it would be useful to have other colored coin protocols such as EPOBC and Colu. ChromaWay is willing to replace EPOBC with something better and can support multiple different kernels, so adding a new protocol is not a big deal for them. One idea is to decouple input-output mapping/multiplexing from coloring, enabling advanced protocols with smart contracts that are compatible with old ones to a certain extent. Core developers may not be interested in colored coins, but Blockstream is developing a sidechain with user-defined assets that could be a preferred way of doing things. Investors do not need to install multiple wallets to deal with varying implementations since a wallet supporting multiple protocols can be implemented. Nicolas is proposing the BIP on behalf of Flavien, who will ACK as needed, but Nicolas will drive the discussions.In 2014-2015, an attempt was made to create an RFC-style standard "multiple-colored-coin-protocol" with representatives from all major protocols. However, the effort failed due to lack of interest in collaboration and each company only caring about its own product. Colu asked for requirements but developed a new protocol entirely on their own without taking anyone's input. Merging the protocols may not make sense as some value simplicity, and a combined protocol cannot have this feature. There is little interest in a merged colored coin protocol now, and Colu is moving away from it. ChromaWay would not mind replacing EPOBC with something better, and they are open to adding a new protocol. One idea they have is to decouple input-output mapping/multiplexing from coloring, allowing for more advanced protocols with smart contracts while keeping them compatible with old ones. Core developers generally dislike things like colored coins, so getting their help is unlikely. Blockstream is developing a sidechain with user-defined assets, which they see as the preferred way of doing things. Investors currently have to install multiple wallets to deal with varying implementations, but this can be solved by implementing a wallet that supports multiple protocols.The Open Asset protocol has been used in the wild since 2014 and cannot be easily modified. However, a new OA2.0 protocol can be created to address existing issues while ensuring that upgraded wallets continue to support both versions. The focus of OA has always been on integration rather than fixing the core protocol, which has resulted in various implementations being used by investors who need to install multiple wallets. To address this, it would be beneficial for major protocols to collaborate and develop a meta-specification that merges the features of existing implementations while avoiding potential issues. This could lead to a more streamlined process for investors and benefit the community as a whole.The Open Asset protocol is an already implemented protocol used in production with multiple implementations. It is not possible to do provably limited issuance and the scriptPubKey can be anything, not necessarily P2PK. The issuer of the asset is determined by whoever can spend the scriptPubkey. If a colored output is spent incorrectly, it is effectively destroyed. It is not possible to issue more than one asset type in a transaction as the asset issued is defined by the scriptPubKey of the first input. For multiple transfers, it is possible to have several outputs. The marker output is skipped in the list. To prevent users from sending assets to a wallet that does not support Open Asset via another address scheme, the protocol requires address reuse for issuing. However, this is not supported behavior and insecure. Older clients may accidentally destroy assets but are prevented from doing so by Open Asset protocol. It is not easily modifiable by now for improving it. There were questions about the clarity and thought-out nature of the Open Asset protocol documentation, but there are also no objections to calling it BIP 160. It was originally proposed by Flavien Charlon and there has been no response from Nicolas Dorier, who is known personally by the original author regarding whether or not James MacWhyte can put his name in the BIP.After reading through the documentation, the writer doesn't believe that OpenAssets, the most popular colored coin protocol in use, has been thought out well enough to build something on top of. However, they acknowledge that it is not a work-in-progress but rather an already established protocol that cannot be changed without breaking stuff.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T18:24:14.439237+00:00