A double spend is not an invalid transaction so much as it is a possibly valid crime-scene forensic evidentiary transaction plus if it is somehow not a crime scene evidence item it is very likely a debugging the network evidence item.

If the first case, deliberate, premeditated conspiracy to suppress such evidence might be a crime in some jurisdictions; if the second case, it might be a crying shame to the debug the network community...

-MarkM-

EDIT: Possibly anonymity versus law problem: if you DO forward it, knowing it might be forensic evidence, laws about chain of custody might apply, making it a crime not to sign reciept of it so forensic teams know you handled it and trace it back to the actual crime-scene.

(P.S. As far as I know I am not licensed by any generally-recognised sovereign nation on this planet to practice law on this planet.)

(P.P.S. Need the police, FAST? Quick, double-spend!)

Maybe part and parcel of being an undeniable asset is being undeniable. You wanna be a deniable asset you take the lumps deniability is designed for like all the other double-0 agents not associated with their nation's government nor royalty maybe?

On the other hand, rumour has it that deniable assets can get some really cool toys if they play their cards right.

-MarkM- (Do we know, even yet, who the real 007 is? )

Facebook seems to have a rather strange idea of what open means... it claims to be an open group, yet there seems not to be a join button, instead there is an ask to join button and seemingly no information about who it is that one would be asking nor a "send query regadring policies of person or persons controlling who ets to join" etc etc etc. In other words it looks like a closed group with closed managers-and-roles list and closed policy...

-MarkM-

I guess negligence is relative.

Neglecting to use as many cutout puppet nodes as the opponent against whom you wish to defend your anonymity could be considered negligence by the opponent who considers such an array of puppets to be simply a standard tool of workers in the field of identity<->anonymity.

Admittedly if the opponent was not neglecting to honour your wish for anonymity... which could be regarded as negligence on their part I suppose if you thought their goals ethics etc were the same as your own. But from their perspective they are not neglecting to honour your wishes, they are honouring their own...

-MarkM-

But obviously tokens, even if not "for" anything, are useful. So useful that they are more widely traded in more volume than anything else unless you count other somewhat borderline-conceptual things such as "molecules" or "atoms" in which case possibly more atoms or molecules are traded than are tokens...

-MarkM- (I dunno though, a LOT of tokens are traded, and atom and molecule are each a token "for" whole families of "things" each...)

This far into development, is the exchange rate volatility an indication that the developers are not actually in good faith developing a currency but, rather, are working a ponzi scheme or some other variety of "embezzling the system's reserves so more of what it brings in is getting frittered away than is being used to actually back the currency" technique (I guess that amounts to "fractional reserve" basically doesn't it? What percentage of the funds invested in coins are actually being held/used as reserves?)

-MarkM-

Setting yourself up in such a way as to allow someone else's negligence to compromise you would be negligence on your part, wouldn't it?

Is your theory that it will take "quite a lot time" to develop it actually a misleading disguise for an actual meaning of "it would take quite a lot time to come up with the money it would take to get it done fast" ?

-MarkM-

"I want a big mac and large fries to go, but only if you accept bitcoins via passphrases like this"

"oh wait, double that order, please"

"yes its me again. still accepting bitcoins via passphrases like this?"

"the usual, please and thank you"

etc

-MarkM- (Darn, I forgot the password from Saberhagen's "Octagon". Chapel Perilous? Something related to that...)

Ah, interesting, thanks.

I wasn't contemplating printing coins to exchange but of printing coins to spend. That is, I did not expect the shop I spend them at to give them on to someone else, I expected if they want to give coins on paper to someone they would print them, whether they were printing the same value that I had just given them (which they moved to another address of course) or coins they already had.

-MarkM-

Is there a google search for barcodes?

I heard you could point your phone's camera at stuff and they would do image-recognition on it.

If so maybe their imae recognition could recognise barcodes so they could froogle the product for you and show you on google maps the nearest place that has it. Oh wait, you are at that moment probably looking right at the nearest instance of that very product, or at least your camera is.

Seems likely google, possibly with the connivance or co-operation of walmart, might be able to beat you at this game...

-MarkM- (At least once they complete bitcoinjs. Meanwhile maybe re-search, adding the keyword "bitcoin"?)

TL;DR make an android app that image-searches "froogle bitcoin [barcode]" ?

If they can easily and conveniently be accepted by shops that accept bitcoin then for anyone who already owns a printer they should be very useful. heck if I had lots of shops nearby that accept bitcoins and lots of bitcoins to spend maybe I'd even buy a cheap printer just so I can walk around with paper bitcoins to spend at local shops.

I do not understand what fractional reserve and so on has to do with using printed on paper bitcoins though. What would I gain by using a fractional reserve system (backed only by whatever is left over after paying for website expenses or whatever it seems) instead of simply giving my printed bitcoins to the retailer to scan into their own system? Or is it precisely because I don't personally have a printer and maybe have no desire to own a printer that I might find using a website that does own a printer useful as a means of printing my bitcoins?

-MarkM-

How much in groupcoin? In devcoin? In bitnickels? Etc...

-MarkM-

A link to the documentation or definition of your bitdollars would help. As it is, I do not know what you mean by bitdollars nor how or whether your bitdollars differ from anyone else's bitdollars nor what language the code is written in nor where to download it nor even whether it runs on my operating-system etc etc etc.

Do they have a three-letter code so they will play nice with CDN, UKB, DVC, GRP etc etc etc currencies my bots already trade?

Are they a blockchain based currency, if so what is the current difficulty, how many are generated per block, how many will be generated in total etc etc etc?

Do you plan to provide an exchange where I can buy them for devcoins, groupcoins, etc etc etc (blockchain-based currencies in general)?

In short, a little more information seems needed in order to make a reasonable estimation of how much chance to give it.

Google came up with bitdollar.org but that is just a forum not a currency proposal at first glance, is there some specific post there that explains what it is maybe?

-MarkM-

Are those prices they show truly the domain price, no content bundled in, no users bundled in, no email addresses bundled in, no "goodwill" (hey users, these wonderful folk are going to be the new management vs hey users warning get out we are moving to a new domain, do not believe for a moment that the folks we are selling it to are anything to do with us nor that we think you should trust them with any of your info...),  etc?

-MarkM-

Maybe the insurance task force could also be responsible for what checkpoints to retain and when to insert checkpoints?

Miners could vote on it, aware of the guns of their local police forces breathing down their necks, to do things like remove any checkpoints that happened since allinvain lost 25000 coins, create a block in which he sent those coins to the CIA or FBI or a spare wallet of his own for safekeeping, make that block a checkpoint, orphaning everything that happened since, and start putting back into blocks of the new real chain everything that happened since, except, of course, anything that is not valid due to being dependent upon his having lost his coins...

-MarkM- (The Institute of Chronodynamics should look into this, their alternate history/timelines department might love it...)

If chargebacks are not {the matter? does that mean "a problem"} then fine, bitcoin and VISA both have chargebacks, with bitcoin it could turn out any time in the next hour or two after doing the transaction that it is afterall a chargeback whereas wih VISA it could take six months to learn that it is a chargeback. But if you don't care about chargebacks, either is just as good/fast but VISA probably more expensive (as it also has to cover the case of you cheating the customer by not delivering the goods purchased.)

-MarkM-

Depends on whether it IS a gold-game started by scammers who have no intention of backing its value with the fiat they obtain by trading some of it for fiat...

-MarkM- (If NOT, then 1/21000000 of the "reserves" the founders have managed to accumulate, or thereabouts.)

There is no crash, and many new networks have already been started.

We achieved parity with every national currency on the planet, and then people started playing gold-games with bitcoin instead of e-gold, so what, turns out even now we are still at or above parity with every national currency on the planet despite all the crap about crashes.

Meanwhile we also have umpteen other cryptocurrencies the gold-game players have not even jumped into yet though I guess we can expect them to start being subjected to this same kind of game-playing any time now.

Luckily some of them actually had games in mind from the get-go though I suppose some people might consider it unfair that players who do not even have a planet one can reach with one's warpbattleships to nuke can effect the value of one's currency...

-MarkM-

Bullshit.

It takes a few seconds or less for a node on the VISA network to confirm that the transaction has been received by the net so will very likely be propagated through the net, just as it does with bitcoin.

Oh but with bitcoin your very own machine can be such a node, thus confirm in microseconds or milliseconds that it has been received by a node (yours) and thus barring some catastrophe such as the node losing contact with the net it will be propagated over the net.

So in the VISA case it takes a few seconds or less to know that you will find out in six months whether the transaction is for real, and with the bitcoin network it takes a few seconds or less to know that you will find out in 120 blocks whether it is as real as a freshly minted bitcoin barely long enough out of the minting process to be an actual bitcoin at all, which one might be tempted to say is as real as bitcoins get were it not that they keep getting more and more and more real block after block after block...

-MarkM-

That sounds wrong, but maybe I do not understand the theorem, so lets review what I thought it was.

My understanding is that according to the theorem money arises when something useful (such as data aka information) turns out to be so useful that lots of people not only agree that it is useful but also start to use it as an intermediary in trade.

So, like, maybe once upon a time someone figured writing was so useful that instead of trading a loaf of bread for a shoelace they traded a loaf of bread either for a note saying "pay the bearer on demand one loaf of bread" or a note saying "pay the bearer on demand one shoelace".

Pretty soon more and more people were trading items for information in various variations of such techniques.

Along came computers, a new medium to write on with new writing tools, so people started trading goods for entries in databases.

And so on.

Did I get it wrong?

-MarkM-