It means those with the highest coin holdings (wealthiest) are the only ones able to sign blocks and transactions, being able to do it without requiring heavy work. The reasoning is that since they have the most coin wealth, they have the most to lose, and thus they won't try to screw the network, lest they crash the price of the coin and lose everything. The idea is also that they will have the most incentive to protect it.

Prof-of-stake sounds like a good idea only until you realize that it already exists, and is called USD and Federal Reserve.

That's already a fairly easy thing to do with multi signature transactions. And cryptocurrencies aren't a problem that we're trying to solve. A cryptocurrency exchange is not subject to banking regulations, does not require bank accounts, and in worst case scenario can be run from a completely secret Tor .onion site. Being able to make fiat currencies like USD or Euro work in a distributed fashion is the difficult problem that needs to be solved.

Watching, and will probably buy the presentation for, $10 you said?, tomorrow.

*goes back to delete all his posts to this thread*

There's still a problem of someone setting up an exchange just to steal money (how will the federation work?), and an even worse problem of Dwolla (example) downloading the client, monitoring all available exchanges, and shutting down accounts of anyone who shows up on that public exchange list.
Don't mean to shut you down, but this problem is tough to crack.

I am Soviet, too, comrade. И тоже говорю по русски.

Would that prosperity come from you starting your own Vegas show titled Cirque du Soleil: Bois Séché d'une grange by any chance?

F it. Let's do this thing.

EDIT: Application sent

It's ironic that my skills are all about finances, which is what Bitcoin and these systems are all about, but my programming skills were abandoned ten years ago, which is what is required to actually get any of this done. It's great to watch these ideas and contribute my own, but I feel so useless without being able to code. Still, I hope I can help, because I really like this project.

I'll start pestering that charity I contacted on Monday.
Also added neuronics to the spreadsheet.

Last point I remember this getting stuck on was the magazine asking "Please email us the amount that you believe you are due, and confirm that that's everything we owe you," to which Goat replied "No *FLAIL-WHINE-TROLL*"

From what I understand, Namecoin
requires its own mining,
its own blockchain that stores both Namecoin transactions and domain registrations/configurations,
requires miners, registrars, and those who with to run a DNS server as home to store the entire copy of the huge blockchain
does not have a method of setting a market rate for domain activities,
requires an exchange rate between Namecoin and Bitcoin,
and I think is limited to .bit domains.

The new idea
leaves all the mining to Bitcoin only, so the block chain will only store DNS changes, making it much smaller than Namecoin's,
the database will be distributed using DHT instead of relying on centralized DNS servers or having to store the whole blockchain locally,
does not need its own currency, so domain purchases can be made with any currency (though most likely with Bitcoin)
does not need its own currency exchanges
registrations for domains are up to whatever prices Bitcoin miners want to charge, so are open to the market,
and will be open to register any type of domains, including Tor and I2P ones.

Hope I got everything right

Wipe it, start clean, and don't worry about it. You're providing a voluntary service, not a paid one, so no one has the right to complain, and a clean, perfectly working system is better than a messy patched up one.

Mike, any updates on the tests or solutions?

 I am pretty sure you either totally misunderstood what this change is about, or have not thought enough about what requiring two completely separate security keys to sign a transaction could be used for. Think multiple signatures on a check, escrows without requiring a third-party, multi device authentication, etc.

FIFY

No, it's because after moving things around, I forgot to put the second asterisk in font of the parenthesis at the end of that paragraph.

Heh, that was my second choice of business schools, and I'm still glad I decided not to go there, this article notwithstanding.
I somewhat disagree with the premise, though. I believe people will get what they deserve by their stupid actions, and don't fret over the collapse. They have all the information they need to survive and avoid problems. If they stay ignorant, lazy, or fearful, why should I care that their financial situation crashes around them? I pick the right choices, so I'm not really affected.

And, to be fair, it wouldn't have matter if the election was won the Obama or McCain. The only difference would have been whether the government stimulus went to the auto industry, or whatever industry McCain supports.

DIANNA will still have its own mining? I thought the new idea was that all mining will be done on Bitcoin only, with DIANNA just being a DHT block chain with each block verified by a hash in a Bitcoin block. So if someone wants to register a domain, they generate a hash that would include their domain registration, pay a miner or a mining pool a fee to mine a block that contains that hash, and once the Bitcoin block is mined, add a block to the DHT database with that block pointing to a Bitcoin block as proof of work. Market rates for domain registration will depend on how much pool operators want to charge to get custom signatures/hashes into blocks.
I guess that would still have problems with centralization and rates dropping to $0 though.

Just needs more vodka before Namecoin perestroika can begin.