What exactly does that mean? Will you buy eMunie for USD at a set rate until your fund runs dry? I think it will have only a short-term effect, but it will be beneficial.

It's sad how this topic is degrading.
I find the original Decrits ideas interesting, and actually presentation is not as bad as some people insist. It's split into four aspects which can be analysed and discussed separately and independently. I'd say they can even be implemented and tested independently.

Pillar one, the proof-of-consensus, is the most critical and controversial one. The numbers (10 seconds for TB, 10 days for CB etc.) are not justified, some reasoning behind them would be nice. The shares are an interesting idea, only I'm afraid that most of the money will be permanently locked in the shares. The commitment of SH to stay online is something definitely interesting, it could work quite well. I would maybe make it harder, for example require it to sign every hour and be late by at most 20 minutes, but lock the funds for a shorter period, to allow more liquidity.
The purpose of SH reputation is unclear to me. They have enough incentive to do their job without the reputation bonuses IMHO.
The biggest issue is that it's not proven that this system cannot be subverted. It has been discussed in the thread, but it drowned in the flame war and it was inconclusive. What the proof of work gives us is a guarantee that the DB that a node sees cannot be easily forged. We face the possibility of it being forged with a lot of resources, however (so called 51% attack). Without PoW, anyone can forge an arbitrary chain of TBs, CBs, where anything that's allowed by the rules can happen. The term "51% attack" is not even applicable here, because it's safe to assume that anyone possesses enough computational power to construct a new virtual blockchain. So the important question is how to decide which chain is the true one given several alternatives. You said something along the lines of "existence of a moment where most shareholders drop out indicates a fake chain", but like this it's not convincing. A clear decision algorithm must be given, and then analyzed for potential attacks. Otherwise the system as it is now is insecure.

IMHO we should concentrate on this issue first, and leave philosophical considerations for later. If you think that this has been resolved it's worth updating the OP with the proposed chain selection algorithm.

Newbie investors with too much money on their hands, who think that bitcoin pattern may repeat and a crapcoin will rise x1000 of its value in 2-3 years.

Easy EUR or USD deposits would be nice, however if I understand correctly this is very difficult due to easiness of money laundering. Good payment systems don't want this, that's why current exchanges only offer some shady crap with huge commissions, or a very long verification.

There are some alternative bitcoin clients, you may want to take a look.

But it may not benefit the network if there are too many hatchers. As pointed out before, you could run many hatchers on the same machine, potentially a huge number of them (billions of virtual hatchers which are just IDs?) depending on the details of the protocol to be revealed. Then you are not even providing the storage space. So there will be a million of hatchers competing for the same transaction. And then transaction spam may kick in, possibly maliciously designed to go to a certain set of hatchers in order to bump their trust.

It's true that you will not break the system by that. But the rules for money distribution are complicated and possibly flawed. As they are presented now, they could be cheated, and then the cheating will become the new, perverted rule. The advantage of bitcoin here is the simple, clear money distribution rule which has not been cheated so far (if you don't consider mining pools as cheating).

Cool, now we're getting closer to the point If only you would explain more.

How is it chosen? Based on public keys, something like "a transaction must be assigned to the hatcher with closest public key"? That can be subverted by a chosen-key hatcher. The algorithm to choose the hatcher is rather critical IMHO, since everyone wants to be the hatcher.

Again, one could create new hatchers on demand.

EMU-based distribution is pretty straightforward, although I don't see the point since this amounts to (perhaps somewhat randomized) even devaluation of currency.
What is interesting is the trust-based allocation. That key point deserves more clarification and discussion. Well, I guess the source code will give us the final answer.

Well, I don't see the verification as problematic. In bitcoin, every node does the full verification of every transaction. Anyone with the full chain can check whether a signed transaction is legit.

Ok. So a hatcher signs transactions and by this his trust value increases. Next questions:
1) Can the transaction author perform the role of the hatcher itself? If so, it can spam transactions and accumulate trust (=money) from nothing. If not, how is this enforced?
2) If the transactions are broadcasted, how to choose the hatcher who will sign it? If they're sent initially only to a specific hatcher, how is double spending prevented?

So what are those rules exactly? It's easy to imagine a network of two nodes, one honest and another pretending to be a 999 nodes network. Whatever the rules are, from the point of view of the honest node it would seem okay that it gets 0.1% of the EMUs issued, because it thinks that it's one of 1000 nodes network. While in fact it should get 50%.

Yeah, but the good threads are still buried and not getting any attention...

The board is a mess really. I think a separate board for coin announces would be a good solution. Even better if people have to pay some 10$ to make a thread there.

I would test it too.

I also thought about integrating a distributed exchange into a coin. It requires the ability to check transactions in another system, say in bitcoin chain. I.e. all nodes must also observe bitcoin and participate in it. This will make the new coin depend on bitcoin and ultimately be slave to it, since bitcoin doesn't care about your coin. This is not a good idea IMHO. The only other way as I see now it is the centralized exchange which clears the transaction with other systems. There can be a 'default' exchange run by the coin authors, but essentially this is no different from existing exchanges.

I don't see how most new features can be added to existing coins. Say I want to test ultra-short blocks, an idea that is very popular now, mainly because it's trivial to implement in the current code. How exactly do you propose it to be integrated in bitcoin, for example?
Why should I be bothered with the developers of existing coins? I don't even know who they are. Even if an idea is compatible with some coin's current implementation (can you give an example of this?), how is it possible to persuade its developers to work on it? How a rejected idea can be vetted as reliable?
Also the community in this forum is extremely biased, because the majority are miners. They are not an indication of a coin's success, unless the coin is released specifically for forum members. Which seems to be the case for all recent coins, but a serious developer should not be influenced by this.

Still the one who manages the key is the weak point. He could lose them, or abuse the power. It suffers from the same problem as any centralized trust-based system. We have already seen cases when exchanges proved not trustworthy, they lose or steal their clients' funds regularly, because there's no legal persecution and they don't care much.

Also I didn't understand why banks need multiple wallet.dat files for the same type of coin.

On a side note, it's funny how people seem to assume that Linux or source code distribution somehow is a guarantee against Trojans. Beware, this may be exploited.

Yes, that doesn't prove that "instant coin" is impossible, just some food for thought.

Those are very interesting properties, I'm sure a coin with any of them will attract attention. Unfortunately "instant" probably is equal to centralization, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem