Not correct - the whole point of Bankcoin is to be a Bitcoin (in terms of a scare digital resource/commodity) rather than a traditional currency that will suffer from inflation (I see this topic has now been moved to the "alternate currencies"' sub-forum although I wasn't actually proposing an alt-chain but fair enough it is not Bitcoin).

I am actually a big advocate of Bitcoin - but I simply think that it's naive that so many people on this forum don't realise that their utopian ideas are never going to happen (and I live in China where the ideas of Carl Marx used to matter).

I have no idea (or influence) about what will happen in the future but I think that realistically people should think more about Bankcoin that Bitcoin.

Thanks - this is exactly what I was hoping for (a well thought out response).

Why exactly would banks not agree to a "decentralized" system if it is in their own advantage (reputation per GFC in my OP)?


I understand that the whole idea of "mining' would be very new to any existing bank, however, with the idea that mining can only be done by permitted IP addresses stops the problem you are referring to - doesn't it?

BTW I think that "bankcoin.com" has been already taken (so I guess unless a bankster took it then this URL will not be likely to be used or someone might be lucky to be paid out for giving it up to one).

It should he a natural competition between the banks (so would be an open market if we can trust banks not to fuck it up),

Am not quite sure what you're getting at but perhaps you might consider putting a reply in the other thread for me to respond to (don't want to derail this thread).

There is a lot of work going on with "Ripple" currently that is likely to accomplish this (also "Open Transactions" is another project to look into).

I don't see why they would bother with Bitcoin when they could very easily and cheaply create Bankcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129047.0

Quite true but I think the whole "trust" issues with "brand banks" after the GFC hit means that no-one would trust them to do this honestly (and the "overhead" is an insignificant investment for even fairly small banks) - by having Bankcoin actually based upon Bitcoin would (at least in theory) be able to greatly increase the trust (especially if Bankcoin was kept open source).

What is Bankcoin you ask?

It would be a very simple alt-coin whose main difference to Bitcoin would be that mining would only be permitted to occur from IP addresses that can be proven to be owned by banks (verification perhaps being perhaps via CA or something better if available).

In order for people to have faith in Bankcoin it would have a fixed coin limit and could not belong to any single bank. No coins would be pre-mined with mining beginning only after all banks that want to participate have been able to set up servers specifically for this purpose.

How would people purchase Bankcoins?

This is the part that most on this forum will hate - you will need to purchase them from your bank (so you basically end up with an extra account that holds Bankcoins).

How would banks make money?

As they always do through fees for tx's and for converting your Bankcoins to and from other currencies.

Advantages for banks?

Hugely revived reputation from being able to offer customers a truly valuable resource that can ensure that their hard-earned savings aren't going to be eroded away by inflation (and this being able to be achieved for little more than the cost of the promotional advertising).

Advantages for Governments and the Uber-Wealthy?

Governments will be able to easy trace every single tx to the account holder and the Uber-Wealthly will get to stay that way by being the "early investors" in Bankcoin.

Anyone else think that Bankcoin is a likely "government friendly" alternative to Bitcoin and a fairly cheap way to make it disappear as a (political) threat/problem?

Well I can't bring myself to use the S word so I guess I'll just keep posting sad faces here...

Still nothing - am beginning to wonder whether I have to put the word SCAMMERS in the thread title to get any help.

I understand that but according to Erik's PM to me someone from "support" should have contacted me a week ago.

Have the same problem with Coinapult - weeks have gone by but still not a single PM from anyone providing support.

Point well taken - so let's say I wanted to do this (if this is getting too OT I'll leave it at this) - how much BTC would motivate someone to crack it if I

(a) just put an encrypted private key with no source code for the encryption
(b) pasted the encrypted private key along with the encryption source code

Would probably consider a private key that has around 100 BTC balance if there are any takers (for option (a) and maybe at least 10 BTC for option (b)).

Actually I've always wondered how good an encryption algo that I wrote years ago actually is (only went as far as verifying that no zip type software could shrink an encrypted file) and now this has given me an idea about how to test that (i.e. encrypt a Bitcoin private key with my algo and publish it for all to try).

So I guess the dictionary hackers should reverse their algos (i.e. do not try anything that is in a word dictionary).




BTW - this has been a very interesting experiment and quite a valuable lesson about the value of scrypt.

One last crack at the 5 letter words after S:

TaKeR
TaKeS
TaLeS
TaLkS
TaRdY
TaSkS
TaStE
TaStY
TaXeD
TaXeS
TeAmS
TeArS
TeArY
TeAsE
TeChS
TeChY
TeLlS
TeMpT
TeNtH
TeNtS
TeStS
TeStY
ThEfT
ThEiR
ThEmE
ThErE
ThEsE
ThIcK
ThIeF
ThInG
ThOsE
ThRoW
ThUmB
TiGeR
TiGhT
TiMeD
TiMeR
TiMiD
TiNnY
ToAsT
ToDaY
ToIlS
ToKeN
ToNaL
ToOlS
ToPiC
ToRsE
ToTaL
ToWeL
ToXiC
TrApS
TrAsH
TrEnD
TrIaL
TrIcK
TrIeD
TrIeS
TrIpE
TrItE
TrOlL
TrOvE
TrUeR
TrUlY
TuNeD
TwEaK
TwIsT
UlTrA
UnDeR
UnDiD
UnDuE
UnFiT
UnTiL
UnZiP
UrGeD
UrGeR
UrGeS
UrInE
UsAgE
UsErS
UsHeR
UsInG
UsUaL
UsUrP
UsUrY
VaLuE
VaLvE
VaPoR
VaUlT
VeNoM
ViDeO
ViNeS
ViNyL
ViRaL
ViSiT
ViViD
VoDkA
VoIcE
VoIlA
VoLtS
VoTeD
VoTeR
VoTeS
VoUcH
WaCkY
WaGeD
WaGeS
WaGeR
WaIvE
WaNnA
WaNtS
WaRtS
WaStE
WeArY
WeAvE
WeEpS
WeIrD
WhAcK
WhAmS
WhEeL
WhErE
WhIcH
WhIlE
WhImS
WhIsK
WhOlE
WiDeR
WiElD
WiNeS
WiNkS
WiReD
WiTcH
WiZeN
WoRdS
WoRdY
WoRkS
WoRmY
WoRrY
WoRsE
WoRsT
WoUlD
WrAtH
WrEaK
WrEcK
WrEsT
WrItE
WrOtE
YaChT
YaCkS
YaKkA
YaRdS
YaRnS
YaWnS
YeArN
YeLlS
YeSeD
YiElD
YiKeS
YiPeS
YoUrS
YoUtH
ZeBrA
ZeRoS
ZeStY
ZoMbI
ZoNeD
ZoNeS
ZoNkS
ZoOmS

Maybe one of the following (got bored after the letter S sorry)?

NeRdY
NiCeR
NiChE
NiFtY
NiNjA
NiMdA
NoIsE
NoTeD
NoVeL
NuKeD
NuTtY
OdDeR
OdDlY
OmEgA
OuTeD
OvErT
PaNdA
PaNiC
PaRsE
PaStE
PaStY
PaYeD
PaYeR
PeAlS
PeEvE
PeRkS
PhOnY
PiCkY
PiNgS
PiVoT
PiXeL
PoStS
PrIcY
PrOoF
PrOmO
QuErY
QuEsT
QuOtA
QuOtE
RaCeR
RaCeS
RaDiI
RaDiO
RaDiX
RaLlY
RaPiD
ReIgN
ReLaX
ReLaY
ReLiC
RePaY
RePlY
RoGuE
RoOkY
RoSeS
RuBlE
RuLeR
RuSeS
SaLeS
SaVeD
SaVeR
SaVeS
ScAmS
ScArY
SeAlS
SeEdS
SeEkS
SeIzE
SeNsE
ShAdY
ShAkY
ShArK
ShInY
ShOwN
ShOwY
SiGnS
SkInT
SlEeK
SlEeP
SlOwS
SlYeR
SmOkE
SnAiL
SnAkY
SnArE
SnOrE
SoLvE
SpAcE
SpAcY
SpOiL
SpOoF
StAkE
StArS
StArT
StAsH
StEaL
StUdY
SwEaT

I think if plugins such as NoScript (for FF and other Mozilla browsers) were to have an option for verifying SHA256 hashes of specific .js scripts then this would provide a significant improvement in DHTML security (such a feature would be of great help for my own software system that encrypts dynamic content using AJAX style requests over plain HTTP).