1) I know you said you´re no longer part of the Monetas team, but are you still in touch or helping them someho?
I stepped down from Monetas earlier this year. Here's the official announcement: http://opentransactions.org/forum/index ... ic=11922.0
Yes we're definitely still in touch, but I am not working there anymore; Johann is steering the ship.
as you´re an important investor in the company?
FYI I am
a shareholder but not
an investor (since I am a founder.)
2) What is your vision for the future of Monetas? Do you think it will be an important project in the coming cryptofinance ecosystem?
When we founded Monetas, our vision was mobile payments, with an emphasis on Africa. (And I have high hopes for their continued success!)
At Stash my focus is squarely on Open-Transactions.
My goal for the cryptofinance ecosystem is to enable "the little guy" server operator to offer users higher actual security than is currently available from the big institutional operations, and also to empower users themselves to the point of complete financial autonomy through cryptographic software. I believe this will disrupt entities who base their brand on trust.
But I'd rather not speculate on how important it will become. I'd rather just do it
3) What are the similarities and diferences between the Monetas and Stash business model and technology?
Are they complementary or competitor proyects?
Correct me if I am wrong but I think Monetas uses a similar software as open-transactions and it´s focused in the african market, which market is Stash pointing at? Is Stash working with bitcoin exchanges to avoid another MtGox situation?
Sorry but I can't discuss Monetas' proprietary information; I suggest you look at their website, and/or ask them. They have a great communications team!
At Stash our focus is heavily on cryptographic proofs and user autonomy. And we’re being approached by all sorts of different entities, including yes, Bitcoin exchanges. And yes, one of the benefits of voting pools is the ability to solve the "MtGox Problem."
That problem is not going to have an institutional solution–it's going to have a technological solution.
4) Who are the 5 developers working at Stash?
Besides Cliff and myself, I will let our 3 developers post in this thread themselves if they wish at this time to reveal their identities. Stash is a big believer in personal privacy. I'll give you a hint though: Any programmer can easily figure out who they are.
5) Does Stash work completely on OT or the project runs a different software? When will be the roll out?
Stash uses OT and proprietary pieces. It will be rolled out in 2016.
6) Monetas and Stash compete with the Blockstream´s Sidechains and the Lightning Network in the off-chain transactions?
What system do you think will win in the long run and why?
I can't speak for Monetas, but Austin Hill and Adam Back are both great guys and I think they're doing great stuff over there. I don't think they're trying to compete with what I'm building. They have their own brilliant ideas.
I am a bit of an anomaly compared to all the other Bitcoin companies out there. They are all creating alt-chains and side chains and many other variations on chains and blocks and coins. But I am building Open-Transactions, a strictly off-chain system. It is unique.
Open-Transactions is like the opposite of a blockchain. Instead of storing a complete history, it proves its state without
having to store the history. Also, unlike Bitcoin (and Ripple, and Ethereum, etc), OT does not
have a global ledger. Instead, it integrates with external global ledgers. And OT does not have a confirmation time, other than "instant."
And our multisig at Stash is not like other companies' multisig, because what matters is not the M-of-N blockchain voting itself. What really matters is the security of the OFF-CHAIN portion of the system. And that off-chain ledger must be based on cryptographic proofs–as Open-Transactions is–in order for the multisigners to make informed decisions on specific M-of-N withdrawals from the pot.
If an exchange's internal ledger is not
based on cryptographic proofs–if it's just a normal database–then their multisig provides the users effectively no security. The multisigners would have to just "take each other's word for it"
whenever moving blockchain funds, making them very susceptible to hacks on individual exchanges. (No collusion necessary!)
And there is no other sort of multisig that we see in the Bitcoin world today except for the kind you see at Coinbase, where the user himself has one of the signatures. (This of course, eliminates the ability to perform any off-chain transactions on those funds, since they are now "locked.")
This is why I have always said that OT is a critical component to making voting pools work.
You can read more about it here: http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/Voting_Pools