I've long thought that an actual working distributed web of trust would be as revolutionary as the Internet: imagine having a complete stranger walk up to you on the street outside your home and say, "Hey man, Can I borrow your keys like right now?" and you hold your phones up next to each other, a light turns green, you check to make sure he matches the picture on your phone, and you hand him the keys. Now that would be pretty cool.  ... you've obviously thought this out to some far out there visions. For Bitmessage alone it means getting rid of the PoW for identities who are sufficiently trusted, eliminating spam entirely, and obviously integration with other systems which depend on feedback and trust of identities.
Yep, real good points. As far as implementation of the distributed web of trust, I'm not sure how it would work but there does appear to be a lot of research on the topic. We could use someone who can recommend some set of papers to read first since there is so much. Hmmm, let me see what I can find out. |
|
|
|
The only possible crime is inflation, but the gold issuer has an incentive to audit the OT server, which prevents inflation.
Why not make it possible for users to audit against inflation? Arrange all still-blinded token IDs in a binary tree of arbitrary geometry. Each token is a leaf node with the hash of the token and its value in it. Attach to each interior node the hash of its direct child nodes and the sums of their currency values. The root of this tree is a hash commitment to the whole tree and the sum of all the value it commits to. This root gets signed by the pool members and broadcast. Everyone can validate that the root sum value is <= the coin owned by the pool. Participants could periodically perform queries where they provide their unblinded tokens along with the blinded ones and get back a new blinded token along with a hashtree fragment that proves their prior token was included in the public count. This is secure so long as users check and nodes can't give different commitment roots to different users. Thanks, good contribution ... this sounds viable and exactly the area left in OT that needs this kind of thought/work towards implementation. Once we have voting pools and auditing protocol hashed out we are pretty much good to go I think ('just' need the s/ware  ). |
|
|
|
Aetheros ... just wondering if there is a use case and a way to add a reputation scoring system easily onto Bitmessage addresses? Basically, we have the basis for a WOT OTC price discovery mechanism here similar to http://bitcoin-otc.com/, since BM-addresses are 'owned' by the controllers of the private keys to those addresses. Keep in mind we can have broadcast channels for price offer/bid of designated asset-pairs but this is not the only reason reputation of BM-addresses would be useful. If there was a way users could securely rate specific BM-addresses that would be the beginnings of a WOT for BM-keys. In fact, you could have several different ratings for each address, "Knowledgeable", "Dependable", "Tradeworthy", etc to cover different use cases for establishing trust with users of BM-addresses. Let me know what you think ... thanx for the great software btw. |
|
|
|
Any plans to adjust the donor levels ... 50 btc for VIP is now upwards of $5k?
Nope. There may be new donators levels eventually, but the current ones will not change price. Must be a rich boys only club by now then? What does theymos think about this ? Also anywhere we can see how much the forum has pulled in total donations? Might expect some upgrades to go with the price upgrades perhaps? Or less shitty moderation? |
|
|
|
I'd like to see how the recent Open Transactions breakthrough might allow for such an agent to come to pass.
Bitcoin itself is more decentralized, so it seems like an agent would prefer normal bitcoin transactions. But hey, get creative. This entire subject leaves wide room for experimentation and research. Wondering if a purely bitcoin agent would have to register with FINCEN? ... or the creator face prosecution? |
|
|
|
|
He should have used namecoin ...
|
|
|
|
Colored coins are specifically for Dollar or Euro based currencies, or even gold-based currencies. For BTC, on the other hand, you just use BTC instead of colored coins. Then you have no issuer and the BTC itself is the primary currency being exchanged. OT will work either way.
I can understand the advantages of colored coins over OT-IOUs (well, I guess I can, it's mostly the strong censorship-resistance of cryptocurrencies, right?) For people that just want to buy and sell BTC once in a while - as opposite to those who wish to profit from active trading -, what's the advantage in holding fiat-backed colored coins?
Couldn't the same scheme of escrows and everything be used to acquire BTC directly, instead of going through colored coins?
You are also probably not considering the advantages of holding provably backed bitcoin OT tokens versus bitcoins themselves ... vouchers, checks, near instant off-chain TX, untraceable blinded cash, recurring payments, plus other stuff. There are payment advantages (i.e. additional monetary properties) to having OT tokens. Think of OT as a decentralised system layered on top of the bitcoin mesh ... and you start to see the bigger picture. |
|
|
|
|
I support this ... moving it from alternative clients is misguided actually since OT clients can easily be used as bitcoin client. I.e. Multi-bit extension, Moneychanger's bitcoind accessing wallet, etc.
|
|
|
|
Mod Edit: Split from Forum ranks/positionsAny plans to adjust the donor levels ... 50 btc fro VIP is now upwards of $5k?
|
|
|
|
|
You can tell it is a propaganda section because you don't have to register to read it .... i.e. they are giving it away fro free.
|
|
|
|
OT is able to confer properties of a decentralised network ... and Bitcoin is actually a highly "distributed" network (any node to any node), a special case of decentralisation.
This is a very different definition of distributed/decenteralized than is used in some other places. The other one is: Visa's network is distributed— there are servers in many datacenters that share the work. But they are all controlled by a central party, they are not decentralized. Likewise, google, any CDN, basically any highly scalable modern service is distributed. Decentralized means there no central authority at all. Very few systems are decenteralized, though arguably many system-of-system federations are at least to a degree decentralized. As far as I'm aware there are no precise mathematical/engineering definitions for centralized and decentralized networks? Obviously any network without a central hub controller is decentralized, can we agree on that at least? I dont' know how other people use it but I thought the posted diagrams make clear the differences. I have seen node-to-node type networks (rightmost picture) referred to as distributed for a long time (3 decades already maybe?) but also they recently call them "mesh" networks. To add to the confusion, in many real-time networks applications SCADA (supervisory computer and distributed acquisition) were some of the first decentralised systems on the market, alongside their competitors/counterparts the DCS (distributed control systems) which actually were much more 'centralised'. Perhaps it is time for someone to sort all this out with a good paper tabulating the network topologies nomenclature, fractal measures, scaling properties, etc? You might be up for that? |
|
|
|
 Central Banking Open Transaction Confederation Bitcoin OT is able to confer properties of a decentralised network ... and Bitcoin is actually a highly "distributed" network (any node to any node), a special case of decentralisation. |
|
|
|
|
"Zealots and criminals" ... pot kettle black ... Wall St., D.C. PayPal
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of niche but I like the ethos and simplicity ... very small dependency basis to get done what needs doing ... and all Open Source if I'm not mistaken?
|
|
|
|
good material ... |
|
|
|
Umm, apparently there were some guys from india at the conference that said they needed transactions in the rupees range. I don't know what a cup of coffee costs in Bangalore but I can't imagine it is that much once the conversion is done ... http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=India&city=BangaloreSmallest atomic unit here seems to 0.33L bottle of water at 15 rupees (about 0.0022 btc) ... although there is 1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff Local (No Discounts or Plans) for 1 Rps. (about 0.00015 btc) |
|
|
|
|
You are confusing honesty with legality.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
