Doesn't make a lick of difference.

I wrote a nastier response, but retracted as in principle I agree with what you are doing and don't want to burn any bridges. But know that it looks bad from the outside:

IFEX doesn't seem to have any connection with IANA, IETF, or any of the governing standards bodies and registries you mention. Despite appearances this proposal is not officially linked to any of those agencies in any way, shape, or form, is informative not normative, and is not on a standards track. In addition to this, your proposal prominently cites an unreleased commercial project, which combined with the unsanctioned association with standards bodies gives them an undeserved impression of “official” approval just before their supposed public launch. Are you sincere in your efforts, or a sock-puppet for Jed and co.? It looks the same from where I sit, and reflects badly on all involved.

My advice: drop association with any unreleased commercial projects, and have such groups publicly follow the same procedures as everyone else for getting registered *after* they launch.

Why is an unreleased credit system with no publicly available information (Ripple.com) so prominently featured in the text and included in the initial registry contents?

Care to sketch it out in more detail? What would the markets-tab look like, where you buy and sell currency? Would transactions be displayed together or ordered by currency? Etc.

My immediate concern is that it undoes demurrage for participating actors, thereby eliminating the positive economic effects which come from universal demurrage, making me wonder what the purpose would be at all.

What you devised seems to be a mechanism for punishing people who don't participate in proof-of-stake. If that's your goal it's fine (although I don't agree with it), but the consequences are antithetical to what we're trying to do with demurrage and Freicoin specifically.

By the way, that's not to say that there aren't interesting consequences from integrating proof-of-stake with demurrage currency. As I've talked about on the Freicoin forums, it could lead to a sort of decentralized republican (small-r) parliamentary government:

http://www.freicoin.org/demurrage-should-it-all-go-to-miners-t20.html

Maybe I'm being thick-headed and just not getting it, but could you explain what problem(s) that solves? It's hard to have an opinion without some context.


PS: If anyone came to this resurrected thread based on the title, we've since gotten demurrage fully implemented and worked out the various best practices for handling accounting with a rotting money supply. Code is on github here. Discussion about Freicoin is happening on its forums and the #freicoin IRC channel (freenode).

Of the choices there is basically no existing open-source bitcoin infrastructure for web apps, except perhaps a few scattered things in Python (pynode, for example). You're going to be doing a lot of stuff from scratch using JSON-RPC--which is available everywhere--so it matters far more how good your selection of language and framework is at doing general web stuff. Ruby (on Rails) and Python (with Django) are both excellent choices, and easy to get hosted on a professional environment like Herkoku.

Why? How is it any different than a numbered bank account, or electronically traded stocks? In either case we're just talking about numbers in ledgers and transactions on disk on the wire. Just as intangible as bitcoin, but there's perfectly clear ownership.

I think you're seeing a problem where there is none.

If you have a purse full of coins and a wallet stuffed with dollar bills, do you need to go through complicated copyright arguments to set precedence for ownership?

Again, relevance? Why would it be desirable to assert copyright claims to the blockchain?

Think of physical experiment, like Galileo using rolling balls on a track to invalidate the Aristotelian theory of motion. Galileo could claim copyright to his notes recording the motions, but it'd be ridiculous to claim copyright on the actual movement of the rolling balls. That's what you're trying to do with “copyright of the blockchain.” If you build a database on top of the blockchain with associated metadata, that'd be different. Blockchain.info holds copyright to their database with receiving-time and forwarded-by information on transactions. But the blockchain is not a record of physical events, it is those events. It's not copyrightable.

The blockchain is not a database. Relevance?

No, that's precisely the point. An OT receipt and/or the auditing protocol (in the works) is all that is required to prove ownership or to rebuild the server should it stop working or be taken down. The OT README has a pithy way of making this point: “The vision is not of a central server that you must trust. Rather, the vision is of federated servers you don't have to trust.”

All of this can be done in Open-Transactions; it does it out of the box.

There's no-one's "doing it"--it's built into namecoin.

You, sir, are a powerful necromancer.

Can you raise Satoshi from the dead too?

No, just.... no.

Did you apply the fix the dependency versions as I mentioned a few pages back? Are you using v0.7 (not supported)?

As it says, you've got a syntax error on line 88 starting with "Format". You shouldn't have uncommented that line (or the one further down starting with "MM Format".

What would this project get you that bitcoin over Tor/I2P does not?

No council would represent me.

The quote from the wiki is talking about unspent transactions already in the block chain.