Bitcoin Forum

Back when BTC was truly decentralized -- everyday users mining on any old PC -- this was a great selling point to get people on board with this type of currency. Everyone that had Bitcoin on the network was help keeping this going, but nope -- with the current METHOD used for mining has only one future, and that is eventually ending up with a few huge mining companies.

While the idea that at least several companies around the world would be mining/maintaining the network sounds okay, I still think that is very bad for Bitcoin, but that is exactly where the future for us is headed. You even have the hardware companies deciding they rather mine instead of sell to individuals.  Something needs to be changed to give THE PEOPLE back power, which was the whole point of Bitcoin.. At this point every single day Bitcoin becomes less and less for the people..

-Sqw33sh

I agree 100 percent, bitcoin is shit.
I want to talk about why and how to fix it.

 ::)

No intelligent input I see.   ::)

Make a mining heater, and I'll start mining. I spend some kW on heating anyway.

You would lose money heating with a miner. Any miner is a heater if you use it to heat with.

Why would I lose money? It's like mining with free electricity since I'm using electricity for heating anyway. But I want a silent miner to have in my living room.

Good luck with that. You might off set your heating bill, but because you would be mining mid day you would probably lose money depending on your comfort range.

I think the best route is to leverage the hashpower on servers that can merge mine alt coins that solve other problems than just the financial transaction role that BTC mainly plays.

I'm not a fan of junking up the chain with other data.

If we can create a cascade system that could leverage the power across any number of compatible chains we could extract value out of the mining process itself beyond the BTC lottery imho

-dvd

Proof of Stake? Anyone?

It will be quite impossible to change the PoW. Only if some big problem surges other than the ASIC market itself.

Bitcoin has choosen this PoW. There is space for other coins to explore other distribution systems.

Market will decide.

No thanks, hate POS.. Just need the halving to come quicker...

If you don't like the way the miners operate, start your own miner. If you find enough people that believe what you say, maybe they will back you.

pow or pos makes no difference. Coins cant be mined into existence. That won't work. Coins need to be issued into existence from trusted parties. 

That is what this is about, abandoning bullshit BTC in favor of something that can work.

Wow. Start an altcoin. Nobody has tried that yet.

No one has started a coin that works on different principles. I am looking for something different.

Two Kinds of Money

1.The Scarcity Model: A single uniform quantity in limited supply made valuable by its own scarcity.
In other words, the value of this type of money depends on the supply of, and demand for, the money commodity itself. Conventional definitions of money define money only in terms of this model, a "medium of exchange". Examples are: cowries, gold and silver, fiat cash and coins, bank credit, and now, in the model's purest and most spectacularly speculative form, Bitcoin.

2. The Abundance Model. A promise of something specific from someone specific made valuable by its redemption in real production. The value of this type of money is defined by the promised redemption in goods and/or services. As such, this type of money is promises of an indefinite number of non-uniform commodities in indefinite supply and, unlike the limited quantity "coin" concept of money, the total quantity of these credits in circulation does not affect their value, because the value of a credit is defined by what its issuer will redeem it for in real goods and/or services. Examples are: business-to-business barter credits, customer rewards, travel points, discount coupons, mutual credit systems.

So what is different that hasn't been done before?

We have not had a currency that was issued into existence for one and we have not had a digital coin with a standard. 

Who would issue and standardize a digital coin?

Trusted entities. I would be willing to issue currency denominated in a objective standard like a ratio to the rogers commodity basket index and redeemable in objective value like USD or gold or used boat parts,  and I would be willing to secure a node of a blockchain for free. 

What would be interesting is a method of mining that uses the internet itself. E.g. a mining widget that can be left running in the background of an offline website (I'm not talking about renting hashpower - that's still got mining hardware behind it). That way our homes are left in peace! The only sad reality though is that the big players will just install massive webserver farms (and so the status quo will return).

Unfortunately the libertarian dream of decentralization is clashing with the reality of damn dirty capitalism. I don't think there's any escaping the big players. Just pray that the big players don't eventually become the crypto version of money-lenders. Then it'd be a scenario of multiple federal reserves probably colluding with each other for the financial interest of shareholders (again!).

Then we'd truly have a dystopian society. Worst of all, we'd all have to shut up about it because we willed it into existence with our hubristic promises of a brave new financial world.

Insane for predicting the end of a tiny project?

This isn't the end of the world we are talking about, just Bitcoin.

Relax, you sound like you are in a cult.

He is. Bitcoin zealot, dont waste your time.

Why don't you just stop visiting this forum with such a negative attitude? Just stop responding is the first step.

Who is trusted? Howabout Obama? He was the most popularly elected president in world history. He even has a Nobel Peace Prize!

Sooo.. WTF do I need to use so I can get this stench of CIA/NSA/oBomBa crypto fiat off of my pc ?! :o


History repeating itself is FUN ! wwwWWWWWEEEEEEEEEE ! :P

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve --> http://youtu.be/5IJeemTQ7Vk?list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q

It's not a negative attitude, it's called well-deserved mocking.

This is a place to talk about Bitcoin, not rage at someone talking about a possible realistic future.

Bye.

I say we start trusting those who have a reputation of doing what they say. I am willing to trust you a lot more than KNC, but trust is liquid and changes with circumstance. That is why we need a decentralized reputation keeper. I will run a node at a cost to me. Will you?

Isn't that called a FICO score?

You too.

Bai.  ::)

Very similar but decentralized.   

Yeah but that is centralized.

So what you are asking for is trustless trust. No?

Blah blah blah are you done yet? We get it, heard you, want a trophy?

The thing about trust is that trade requires it. There is no such thing as trust less transactions. It is all a matter of who to trust.  Right now bitcoiners trust who ever has the best mining hardware.. That system sucks dick. I am saying why not trust the individuals with the greatest trustworthiness instead, but that is against holliday's religion 

You can have a decentralized trust system like Silk Road, but only desperate drug addicts would trust it.

Government issued mining hardware, everyone must own one and get it replaced every year or as needed?

Tax is the power it uses.

Maybe you can learn something from the other people posting and stop the raging.

sHitler gave the Austrians radios.

oBomBa gave the Yanks cell phones.

Do you see where this is going ?

Bullshit. People trust people who are trustworthy. I trust sellers on the SR they do what they say. I dont trust asic chip set manufacturers, All currency is a debt. 

That wouldn't be the same, it is more like requiring everyone to obtain an ID card, everyone needs to obtain free mining hardware (replaced and updated as needed) they simply plug into a wall to help support stability and trust in the system.

Maybe you do, but how does that invalidate my point that only desperate drug addicts would trust it?

Why would I? I have no idea of their goals, motivation, or transaction history. I dont even know who they are.

Well I am not a desperate drug addict for one. That is the point of a reputation keeper it keeps everyone honest. 

Trust miners

Miners put their money where their mouth is.

As I stated, this isn't doomsday so calm down and learn how to interact with someone.

I see you dont trust the miners, but trust the protocol? is that right, to bad the miners control the protocol. They will change in to deny holliday's transactions. He is a piss ant cheerleader.

You cant rationalize with a zealot. 

Haha.  :D

Yeah, from you. Are you done yet?

That's what Bitcoin is. It's a public ledger that keeps people honest as long as you don't just blindly give them your money and you keep your keys offline and secure.

Sorry master, I didn't know I was slave to you.  ::)

As I stated, learn to read, and please do learn how to interact with an individual, instead of acting like a complete cult hugging nut.

*plonk*

Just stating facts.

Time to relax now bro.

..and it continues..  ::)

You do have a point as pools only get bigger and bigger.  :-X

Yeah and the concept of pooling, red flag from the start haha.

Not insane just brainwashed. There is nothing to fix with bitcoin because there is nothing wrong with it is there? Bitcoin will continue to consolidate because its not a problem according to some.

I seriously thought this guy was finally done..  ::) :P

Your a retard, I hope you lose your ass, you deserve it. I will be here to laugh at you while you sink with this ship.

He is never done, like any good zealot

Not angry, just enjoy watching zealots eat humble pie.

Currency has no value it represents value.

Worse case of denial, I love Bitcoin but it is guys like this that give it a bad name.

I dont like watching zealots defraud liberty lovers. You and your kind are redistributing funds from freedom lovers to yourself and KNC

You are right individuals are allowed to value anything they want no matter how pointless it is. 

Holliday we get it already, you are an insane hypocrite who needs to take his meds right away.

Your only in it for you so I dont expect you to get it.

What I know is you support a concept that benefits you at the expense of others.

What you are implying is EXACTLY the same. Sorry to burst your $1000 BTC bubble but, the world will not accept /adopt cryptos unless it is forced upon them.

The bankster warpigs flattened Libya so as to set an example of what would happen, to the other countries involved, if they did not abandon gold backed African Dinar. What will they do to your precious computer data.. I mean crypto currency.. if someone ever decides to back it with anything but computer data/ the blockchain ?

A gentleman's bet says you haven't the faintest clue as to why the parasite banksters biggest fear is a gold/silver/barter based economy.

HINTs:
Both paper and data are easily burnt (pun intended) and/or manipulated.

Pea brain. If you are free and your children are enslaved what good is it? Altruism is a selfish act.  In other words what good is my freedom if my brother is enslaved?

Cant see the forest for the trees.

You can actually use bitcoin or you can invest in it just hoping it will go up, and panic when it doesn't. Your loss....

While I agree ASICs prevent sustainable growth because of science and limitations in human technology.... Even so, the network will still survive.

Let's think about all the things wrong with your argument.

Why would it be bad to have huge mining companies:
 1. They could decide to stop mining
 2. 51% Attack
 3. ?????????
 4. Profit.

Reasons why a company would do that?
????????????????????
What just happened here?


What is the point of this thread?
WHY does this all sound familiar?

Edit: Hmmmmm still thinking  ???

But POS coins are getting every day more decentralized and strong contrary to bitcoin.
You see the trend here?

I see a merge mined alt currency filling this void in the future.  

While bitcoin remains difficult for the average user just reading about it with their PC and no fancy specialized equipment.  That is why I back and fund Huntercoin projects.  Because it is merge mined both SHA-256 & SCRYPT, so it still keeps mining power/loyalty "in the network."

Giving every day people the ability to mine with just a PC and a internet connection is going to be a important factor in the future.

I just don't know if people are willing to "work" to mine or if they just want to point a miner n jerk off till coins roll in.

I am genuinely quite impressed with your patience towards these chaps Holliday.

I can never understand why these kinds of people, who obviously dislike bitcoin and those who use/work with it and would like to see it fail, for some reason which only they can understand, hang out online in bitcoin forums; it truly boggles my mind.

If they were here to point out issues with the protocol because they wanted to help fix them or ask the community for help then I could understand, but to just spout nonsense about guaranteed failure, well, I certainly do not do such things in places I can choose to freely not participate in. What a waste of time & energy.

BTC now is a whole lot more decentralized than in the early days when miners could grab thousands of bitcoins the easy way.

Great, I still remember the first BFL vision that their jalapeno miner work as a coffee warmer, but that end up with fans and huge surge in power spec due to people greedily want more hash power ;D

And I think those large farms will be shut down one by one when electricity cost is higher than the exchange rate. And their miners will be sold dirt cheap to students who have free electricity. In bitcoin's world, centralized organiztion will always face much larger risk than distributed individual actors

wow to this thread .... just wow.

We know there is a problem and there is nothing we can do to fix it. From here either abandon ship and move to altcoins that address this issue or live on with it. Sadly that is the *fact*

If btc will fail, then it will fail. Those who are trying to keep it alive have done their job but btc users tend to hold instead of using it. If it will die, let it be.

I wouldn't say that an alternative is needed (but we are allowed to discuss the current offering, aren't we??).

The evolution of Bitcoin seems to be moving away from decentralization and heading towards a FIAT system (an online FIAT system). I don't see anything wrong with discussing this today even if it's a 4 year old discussion. Bitcoin is evolving. Aren't we allowed to discuss that evolution and speculate on where it's headed?

Next year Bitcoin will have evolved some more and I'll be happy to discuss this topic again at that time based on where Bitcoin is at that time. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It won't work, since the hardware is much more expensive than a regular heater, and you only still use it in winter. Therefore ROI on the hardware is impossible, even considering the subsidized electricity. You'd lose money vs buying a regular heater. This will only work if you for some reason use the heater 24/7 all year.

Also, I don't think the purpose of this thread is "how to save miner money". Even with a 24/7 heater miner, Bitcoin eco-system is still paying for your hardware/electricity and value is transferred out of the eco-system.

You do realize there is no way around it. Even if you limited amount per computer/ip address that can be mined in a day these people have money and would just do it on a larger scale and we would have the same problem once more.

Once mass produced, hardware will be as cheap as today's old PCs, cost very little. And, you can build that into a warm water heating device, which provide warm water 24/7 for hundreds of apartment, hotels etc...

There must be a cost to produce coin, which in the long run, is electricity. That will be the balance point of exchange rate. If you build a car that cost 10K dollar, you will not sell it for anything less, that is the way the coin's value is backed by its cost. And only by doing so will make sure other new people are willing to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollar to acquire one bitcoin

I love Bitcoin, problem is you have people like you and Holiday that give BTC a bad name by acting all cult-like towards this currently existing system.

You guys are exactly the type of people that would blow up in a conversation in the real world when hearing the TINIEST negative thing about Bitcoin.

Grow up and face reality.

In a sense i agree with that. Every time someone asks me about buying some haslets or purchasing the hardware itself my vote goes to
owning the hardware but now i got one more reason for "why to".

Its very annoying, but less and less of them as the price continues to tank, wait till its back to 20 bucks a coin.

Oh god you are so beyond clueless, yes this is a forum, yes people state opinions, yes you are seriously retarded or something.

Just stop, take a breath, and learn to read.

Realize that you aren't the only person in existence.

7 pages already for this BS topic? Back when BTC was "truly decentralized" someone with a couple thousand $ could disrupt your decentralized network. It's not that hard...So what's the purpose of this topic again? For you to get rich from mining?

The point is people shouldn't make money or get rich from mining, as that obviously leads to centralization. (just my OPINION - Holiday relax)

The TXFEE's should be based on a PERCENTAGE not a FIXED amount -- that is one of the biggest flaws IMHO that Satoshi missed :p

Fix that and then reward miners with TXfees only (which is eventually the end game)

"Miners are the guardians of the public trust" and absolutely deserve some compensatation for their service

-dvd

Man I like this guy.. You got it bro. It is the financial incentive in controlling the network that will insure that it will be controlled. It is a consequence of the scarcity model for currency.

I always assumed that was a sarcastic thought experiment where you get to double your holdings (of PoW Bitcoin).

One thing I don't get with all these threads is why Bitcoin proper would be expected to drop it's one defining characteristic. We are currently conducting an experiment to find out if distributed consensus is even possible in the face of well-funded adversaries. To change the consensus mechanism mid-stream would invalidate the experimental results.

I understand that the PoW opponents think that PoW will eventually fail. If/when it does, we can learn from how much damage is actually done during the attack. Bitcoin is designed in such a way that any attack has to be ongoing to be effective. With the "Nothing at Stake" problem in PoS coins, the attacker needs only the majority of votes at a single point in time.

It wont fail it will just become irrelevant, you can still use myspace. 

I would never put a penny into some old boy network coin. They are worthless to me. The fact that anyone can compete for coins makes senses and is fair. Issuing coins is one of the big problems in monetary systems that bitcoin solves.

Don't worry, miners whatever they are (big companies or not) will care about bitcoin price because on that their earnings depends

Such hypocritical bullshit spews out of bitcoin zealots mouth.. Let me dumb it down for you.. bitcoin's networks is a good old boys network now. That is what this thread is about. Everyone can not participate or compete.   

 ::)

That would work, only if the Bitcoin core developers endorse both chains and promise to give equal development attention to both. THEN we'll see which chain will win. Otherwise your proposal won't work, since current Bitcoin stakeholders will naturally choose the chain that has core developer endorsement and active development support.

People are working on these things.....three very good solutions:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281180.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN2TPeQ9mnA

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/

More or less all altcoins are a fork of bitcoin (although they may not use the same blockchain, they are really still a fork). You can look at the success (or lack thereof) of the proof of shit (PoS) and can see that PoW is superior

Conversation:

Person A: "Wow, look, that bird's flying really high up"
Person B: "What is the alternative to the bird flying high up? Tell me the alternative, or shut up about birds flying high up"
Person A: "Huh?"

 ???

LOL! I guess tenacity is a virtue of sorts.

Trusted by whom? You? Me? Who do you trust?

You think there is a problem and there have been no suggestions in this thread on what to do to fix this supposed problem.  FTFY.

If POW is an issue (and many people who know the code would strongly disagree), what is the option?  PoS?  The problems with PoS are well documented.

Miners can pick the fees and include transactions in blocks based on their own criteria.  Free transactions are includable by some miners.  Anyone can include any transaction in a block whether it includes a fee or not.  If some thinks that people should not "make money" from mining, mine (or create a pool) that only includes free transactions.  No one is stopping you, you just have to convince others to join you or buy enough hash power to do so yourself.  If that is not palatable to you, why do you think it would be palatable to others?

Without any incentive (e.g. to make money) to mine, who will mine?  If no one mines, what happens to the network?

The solution here is if you think something is broken, grab the code, fork it, and fix it.  Then see if others agree with you.  Discussing it here does absolutely nothing to fix these (supposed) flaws. 

Miners and pools can use fixed fees, percentage fees or whatever criteria they want.  That is the beauty of bitcoin, Satoshi doesn't fix fees, bitcoin core doesn't fix fees - anyone can set fees themselves, just grab the code and do it how you think it should be done, create a pool and get people who agree to join you.

Exactly.  Some of the people of Venezuela trusted Chavez.  I certainly did not.  Many trusted Hitler, many did not.  Many trusted Mao, many certainly did not.  Many trusted Clinton or Bush etc.  Who do you trust?  Why do you think that everyone has to agree to trust a single person or party?

Bitcoin avoids the need to trust anyone except the code and the math.  That is its virtue.

All you have to do is fork the code, fork the blockchain and go from there.   Swap out the PoW code with PoS code, keeping it modular and you can piggyback on the Bitcoin Core updates.  (Look at the "no-forced fee version of Bitcoin core" for an example of that).

You aren't going to convince many (if any) of the "core developers" to switch to PoS when they have documented and discussed (publicly if you have been reading) the problems with it.  It is incumbent upon the people/person who is saying there is a problem with PoW to (a) propose a solution and (b) implement the solution instead of trying to set conditions on people who are free to code as they want.

If you throw the forked code and forked blockchain out there and can't convince people it is better, that isn't a problem with lack of support from developers, it is likely a problem with the model.

Holliday is right.  If you can't clearly specify the problem, clearly specify how the problem is different from what has been discussed numerous times already, and clearly specify the proposed solution, no developer is going to even listen to what you have to say.  At worst you should specify some pseudo code if you can't actually code.  When people say "fork the code" or be specific this is an invitation to be specific and put your time where your mouth is instead of expecting others to do so for you.

You can say "the core developers need to do X (something vague)" and you will be completely ignored without specificity as above.  No one wants to waste time re-arguing a point that has been discussed merely because someone new has brought it up.

Perhaps you should stick with your existing legacy fiat system if you want that.

The mining competetion leads toward most effective way to mine. How can these huge mining companies compete with small users having free electricity like me  ???

Yes I use electricity to heat my room in winter anyway so if the miner is silent and reliable I can use it to generate heat.

An Altcoin like or similar to Darkcoin will gradually overtake BTC in terms of use-ability and popularity.

Your SHA256 gear will become (even more) worthless  :o

So who are the lucky people who will receive your coins? Am I going to get some? Or am I suposed to buy them from your friends?

More likely a "Green Address" Coin will replace Bitcoin. Every address must be officially registered and tracked.

Funny, I was thinking pretty much the same thing reading the thread.

Pascal's Scams

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2012/07/pascals-scams-ii.html?m=1

I gave and sold off all my coins 10 months ago. I am not in it for personal gain and no longer support bitcoin or the scarcity model for currency.

bitcoin is the shittiest, smelliest noggin of poop on the planet!

So now your just paid bank shill, right? Or how can I interpret when you saying Bitcoin is going nowhere, there should be coin issued by trusted party ?

Coin issued by trusted party - it is the fiat scheme if you didnot noticed.

Who says so? You? Who are you to say what should people get from mining or not?

Very nice point their, i support you mate.  ;)

Anybody can start hashing, hashing is not restricted to anybody. If you cry you cant be profitable because of the power company wanting so much per KWh, it is not Bitcoin fault

I meant the coins in the system you outlined. My concern with any system that issues coins is that the issuer has total control over that process. They can issue them or not issue them to whom ever they like. The fact that bitcoin solves the problem of distributing coins by rewarding anyone willing to strengthen the network is brilliant.
I just don't trust a system that requires people I don't know to do the right thing, especially when there is an incentive to do the wrong thing. Nobody decides who I can buy bitcoins from. Nor can anyone tell another peer that they can't try for a block reward.  Who decides in an issued coin system?

Under the proposed system anyone with the ability to produce something of value to other people could issue their own coins. If you can back a coin you can issue a coin people can choose if they want to accept it or not. If you dont have credibility people are unlikely to take your credit.

watch this.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyWfUqEyIZc     
There is a full proposal outlined here http://www.moneyasdebt.net/  ,the system I am talking about was not developed by me but Paul grignon. I am just a rabid supporter of it.


quote by E.C. Riegel

"There is a treasure buried in your consciousness. If you will dig it up from the debris of superstition and fear that covers it you will gain a freedom and self-mastery that will lift your life to a higher plane. This is the money power in you.

The power to create money with which to purchase wealth, health and happiness actually lies dormant within you. You have thought of the money power as something remote from you and beyond your grasp. You have dreamed of the good you could and would do if you had money power. You have blamed others for not accomplishing this good. You have blamed them for evil economic and political conditions; for unemployment, for poverty, for crime, for war.

It is quite logical to blame these maladies upon the malfunction of the money power, but you have not suspected that the money power resides in you and because of your failure to exert it the world is afflicted with miseries. You have the power; you have the responsibility. The power and responsibility to banish poverty, unemployment, insecurity, misery and war rests entirely with you.

You, in cooperation with other intelligent persons, can drive economic and political evils further and further from the area of your life and ultimately they may be driven from the face of the earth. You can do this by the money power in you, expressed first in your own prosperity and happiness, and radiating to others. You can do it and you must do it. There is no power outside of you that can bring these blessings to you.

Petitioning the Government is like writing to Santa Claus. You need no laws — there is a law, a natural law that governs your money power. You need no government aid. You need only cooperation with and from persons who, like you, have resolved to exert the money power inherent in us all. This power in each of us needs only the recognition and respect of our fellows to spring forth and exert its blessings.

We need not petition Congress and we need not waste time to denounce bankers, for they can neither help nor hinder our natural right to extend credit to each other, and this is the perfect basis for a money system."

Amen. It seems Riegel got inspired by Satoshi whitepaper

Money Power In You
E.C Riegel, Private Enterprise Money, 1944

Maybe because he was wrong in this:


You need a lot of trust to issue credit to others, or your credit is worth nothing.

There are lots of people with lots of trust and trade requires trust so it is really just a matter of who to trust.

You can only trust to Escrow with as much Bitcoins as it is not likely (economical) for the Escrow to scam you instead (and just the Escrow risking loosing trust)

But some trades might require more trust than any Escrow can provide, no?

Mining consolidation is bothersome to be sure, but I'm not excessively concerned about it as long as the transfer mechanisms remain in tact.  This because in a worst-case scenario where miners attack the system (highly likely for deeply invested entities under judicial duress) it would not be impossible for Bitcoin to adapt.  The threat of this happening would probably be enough to make it not be attempted.

On the other hand, if Bitcoin tries to support the world's exchange economies it will certainly grow to the point where it is fairly unfeasible for any but the same sorts of highly invested interest to support the transfer functions as well.  That is to say, the whole ball of wax.  Gavin's proposal to make bitcoin growth exponential pretty much guarantees that this will happen eventually.  And people basing their propensity to hold BTC on future value (the smart ones) will need to factor this in.  I certainly will be.

Sidechains could solve the problem by allowing Bitcoin to be the value basis for a world-wide exchange economy while preserving the Bitcoin core in a form where it could be realistically supported by semi-individuals.  Attempts to attack the solution from the top down (by attacking individual sidechains) would be a futile whack-a-mole adventure.  Hopefully.

I'll mention again that at a rate of 7 TPS or something in this general ballpark it would be very difficult to quash traffic even if one had complete control of the global internet infrastructure and was leveraging deep packet filtering and the like.  The farther we stray from these kinds of traffic rates, the more difficult it becomes to slip through the various inevitable cracks which wold exist even in a highly controlled system.

Ok, I think I understand you better now. You are more thinking of a plurality of coins issued by individuals and backed by their personal credibility. More of a credit system? I can see a role for something like that. I origionally thought you were proposing a bitcoin like coin that has a central authority to hand them out. With many such coins representing individuals, are their valued based on the demand for your credibility? So that a scammer type has little chance of finding buyers vs. a good guy. ?

 I think I get it.

It is called an opinion.  ::)

You get are getting much closer to getting it. The value of the coin is set by what it is redeemable for but would fluctuate against your actual ability or perceived ability to redeem them. If you over issue, your coins might trade at a discount because of the risk premium. 

Watch this its 10 little mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZAmQXvB7I