What networking protocol are you using, markm? Is that an open-standard communications protocol approved by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)? If not where can I read the specifications?

It is very simple why China's political model is superior.

The name of the political class in China is "communist party". The name is not important. The most important thing is that there are 3 or 4 political wings within the communist party that have different views on how China must develop in future. They must compete for the votes of ordinary party members. In the US the name of the political class is "political establishment". There are only 2 wings there that name themselves republicans and democrats. There is almost no competition between them because there are only 2 of them. They can always make a deal at the expense of the society! When one of them is on power the general public has no choice but swap them with the only other choice available. Actually, there is no choice! You know from the real life market economy that in order to have genuine competition in a given market segment you have to have at least 3 independent companies competing for market share... I'm glad that in the UK political system there are 3 alternatives now.

I doubt we need capital to switch to bitcoin. But even if you feel you need looking for capital the old banking system is the wrong place to look into. There is no capital there. There is only debt. And not just debt but extremely leveraged debt!

I don't see anything wrong if people act like they have some right to information. I don't see why you are so upset about that? In fact what I see is you're acting like anti-"cryptoanarchist"...

Such a system for clearing funds between exchanges was offered to TH almost a year ago. It was quite clear that banks will wage an open war against bitcoin sooner than later. Its petty they have decided at that time they are too big to fail and too brilliant entrepreneurs to grab a helping hand...

Thanks, Mitchell and molecular.
Rick Falkvinge - excellent talk.

Of course, it is bad that Satoshi gave up all bitcoin contact. I have always wondered why? Worse than that however he can't already prove he is Satoshi! Switching from CPU to GPU mining is a mistake with critical consequences. That will be seen more clearly when incentives for miners begin to go down. If I may borrow Lincoln's phrase - "Currency of the people, by the people, for the people" - should entirely depend on ordinary people using it every day, not on a few mining pool operators.

Keep up the good work, CoinHunter. SolidCoin definitely has a brain wave.

The server/software isn't cheating you / your users, but the server is operating with fake money because the minter using this server is not reliable. Whatever reputation this minter has so far nothing is preventing them from "printing" as much tokens as they wish without bothering to back them with actual assets. Nothing is limiting them because they can not be hold responsible for breaking the contract they have signed. They can not be hold responsible because they can not be brought to justice. They can not be brought to justice because they are anonymous... Case solved!

I have signed a contract. Actually, the contract itself is the digital asset (Ricardian contracts). If I don't fulfill my obligation described in this contract I shall be brought to trial by the owners of those digital assets.

Why do you think people sign contracts? Because they need to do business with each other but don't trust entirely each other. Now you're trying to convince me that you have a reputation and I have to trust you 100%. If I trust you 100% I don't need any contract in the first place!

Ahha, so why do you think your private key should be of any value to me? Because you would attach some "anonymous" reputation to it, right?

There is an old movie that was starting like that: "This is the City of London where reputations are made and... sold". So, what would be the guarantee that you will not "sell" your reputation when I least expect it, say by printing tokens that are not backed by actual assets?

This is different. This is commercial counter party risk.

What we discuss about is someone giving you fake money Since you can not exchange them for the asset they are backed by in minter's vault. They don't have value unless you find someone that is willing to give you something valuable in exchange for those fake money... And you find this to be a perfectly normal way of doing business?

Interesting. Why should I accept this risk in the first place? Being anonymous your reputation is zero because anyone can speak on your behalf claiming they are you!

I think your OT server is just a Martian proxy.
Guys, what do you smoke today?

I don't understand what are you trying to say if this is an argument. Argument to what? That you don't need to obey the law if you pay in cash above the limit that is allowed?

There is no technical impediment but there is a legal question - what can I do to defend my interest if the signed "anonymous guy" does not honor their contract? How do I sue them if they are anonymous?

OT servers do not need to have good reputation. They don't need to be trusted by the users and are disposable. But minters absolutely need to be reputable and transparent in how they handle the actual physical backing.

There is no country where there is no limits imposed on payments in cash!

There is no way to keep minters anonymous. Minters have to issue digital assets and sign contracts where those digital assets are backed by physical assets. Reputation and anonymity are two words that don't go well together. Nobody will trust anonymous minter.

Okay, please give me a day or two to write down some text. I shall PM fellowtraveler my suggestion and if he decides we can publish it. Yes, I have been considering the "marble" option for quite some time and it'll be something along those lines. 

Mark, you have to obey the laws and financial regulations or you have to be ready to prove in the court of law that what you're offering is not a financial service. It is simple as that.

I'm ready to discuss how to change OT so that it does not resemble financial service but a game.

It doesn't matter how OT server is designed to work. All that matters is how it will have to work in the real world as a financial services provider.

As user you can run and hide but as an issuer/custodian/legal guardian of the backing/physical asset you can not for you're "anchored" to the world you've just described. You have to obey the laws whatever they are in the country your company is residing and there is no much room for discussion here.

My point is not to discourage you, on the contrary. I'm actively working to setup a service based on OT. Simply can't afford to bury my head in the sand...

This is not clear to me. In the original Chaum's paper the analogy to voting through carbon paper envelops is counter intuitive. What if the trustee is signing on empty envelop? Nick Szabo compares blind signature with signing blank checks but this is even worse for it leads to even greater confusion...

I guess the closest real life comparison can be made with travelers checks. You have the issuer, serial number, face value and the signature of the bearer but you can't know how many hands the check changed since the time it was issued.

There remains the question with AML regulations. Nothing prevents financial authorities in the respective country to ask you change the OT server code so that all transaction, say above $500 be declined if done through server 'cash mode'?!