I like what you're doing but shall not jump to solidcoin. Only reason is that its currency sign is very similar to dollar sign.

No, I haven't.
Why don't you take the fingerprints of your customers? It is more secure than IDs.
Wasn't bitcoin supposed to be anonymous, just like paying with cash?

It is more like ARPA/DARPA like project. Kind of Plan B for a future financial collapse.

No.

It is very possible that in one form or another the US government is behind this project. Bitcoin is not designed as a tool against banks. It can not serve as POS money. Bitcoin is designed to be the digital equivalent of gold because the US government gold was used to back IMF and World Bank interventions during last 15 years.

Of course. You may wish to follow this thread as well:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28565.0

This possibility is equal to someone breaking the SHA256 algo in the future and finding the "lost' bitcoins... But then, what will happen to all bitcoins that are not lost?

Aah... So, it must be something very bad?

Really? How is it different?

If bitcoin is imitating gold then what is it like trading gold for bitcoins?

Can I see the original, please?

What I do not understand is: How can you tell a coin is stupid if it is virtually the same as the coin that is not stupid?

A group of people under the name "Satoshi" showed us it is possible. Thank you! I'm going to explain, however, that this is just a fraction of what needs to be done if a bitcoin economy is the final goal. I feel sick to read this forum day after day and see how much time, resources and talent are wasted chasing barren ideas. Current thread is the closest match to some of my own ideas.

Part I - Bitcoin is not digital currency.

Although bitcoin concept is far from being flawless it can still serve well as digital gold. I would personally like to see competing block chains like digital silver, digital platinum, digital palladium or (why not) digital diamonds, and so on. All digital money must be open source distributed p2p applications and defer not only by the name but by initial distribution, cryptographic principles, network protocol specifications, mining methods, transaction fees and how they are defined, etc. All they must have floating exchange rates towards one another which will change in line with how efficiently over time they fulfill well known money functions:

"Money is a matter of functions four, a medium, a measure, a standard, a store."

Store of value
Unit (measure) of account
Medium of exchange
Standard of deferred payment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

During last 5000 years gold served well as money. With the advent of Industrialization and mass markets it became apparent that physical gold is not very suitable to be medium of exchange. Contradiction was resolved by issuing paper certificates of gold ownership by private banks or governments. We all know many examples of how this was abused. The most successful system used was kind of mixture - bilateral or multilateral trade agreements where unit of account for every purchase was gold but only final outstanding balances were cleared through physical delivery of gold. Yet it was (and still is) expensive drill. Takes couple of days to prepare and move gold bars and coins from one point to another using train, plane or battleship. Until 1971 when some people decided they can play God and removed the gold standard. Only 40 years later we are where we are... in front of a major economic disaster.

Bitcoin concept (arguably) is a major step forward compared to gold. Instead of train, plane or battleship and couple of days preparations now it takes Internet connected computer and 1 hour of time (6 blocks). But still, it takes 1 hour to move bitcoin (digital gold) from one address to another. Given nowadays shopping habits not just 1 hour, but even 1 minute is too much!

Conclusion:
Bitcoin is a major improvement but still is digital gold, kind of. Complimentary payment system needs to be developed based on bitcoin (digital gold) as clearing currency. I would not use terms like fast bitcoin and slow bitcoin transactions, because this suggests overlapping parts of payment instruments, systems, block chains, or network protocols. THIS MUST BE AVOIDED AT ANY COST!

Next: Dichotomy

I didn't. Still working on it. Solving the problem of fair initial distribution of wealth is an epic task. Human understanding of what is fair and what is not tends to change over time and is slightly different in the different cultures and societies. I'm sure there will be many competing approaches.

'Or you pick up a weapon and stand opposed...'
And this is exactly what I'm gonna do. If I don't get answers I'll make a new, improved block chain that will be totally transparent from the very beginning.

If it is about POS transactions the name of such a project can be poscoin. But first, let me tell you that your efforts are much appreciated. This is the right direction to follow.

I agree that the major challenge ahead would be creating a distributed system based on trust. I also agree that ripple project is a good base but a lot of additional work has to be done. Not so much about technicalities but about theory, because we shall enter into uncharted territory. My advice to you would be not to go into too much technical details at this phase. A lot of theoretical questions need to be answered first. Tomorrow I'll try to post some of my considerations.

I'm not, you are. You are missing the bigger picture. To make a trade happen easier is just the same as giving the buyer easy money. That should never ever happen or you intentionally create bubbles in the economy.

There are sufficient dollars (if this trade is so important to the economy). Each item will be traded at $0.10 and the sky will not fall!

This is a fallacy! How money supply becomes inadequate? Money is a measure not fuel for economic growth. By increasing money supply as economy grows you are in fact rewarding a group of participating parties with extra money they do not deserve. You are creating bubbles! Bubbles are much more disruptive than slower growth.

If someone told you that economic growth depends on money supply they are plain ignorant!