One (possibly last) thing I'll say for a while is this:

I never expected (in my thought experiment) that 'bakcoin' would form a dominant body of value for any alternate crypto-currencies.  That would be formed by their own merit mainly.  Such things would include:

 - the strength of the developent community and user base.
 - the design and implementation
 - other forms of more tangible backing (USD, BTC, Gold, whatever.)
 - the market segment they occupy
 - and on and on

Further, a good design would either neglect the modest 'support niceties' that Bakcoin might be able to supply (like a secured scratchpad) or at least design such that it is a dispensable item eventually.  This would allow them to migrate away from any reliance on 'bakcoin' in the future.

For these reasons, there would be a reasonable expectation that an alternate crypto-currency could retain some or all of it's value even if Bakcoin itself crashed and burnt.  Of course Bakcoin would try very hard not to do so.

Ideally 'bakcoin' would serve as a set of 'training wheels' for the most part.  It's main goal is to incubate new and better crypto-currency solutions which are providing a variety of options to end users.

I formally appologize fot this (and only this) thorny barb.  I had not realized that the conversation had been move and it seems both fair and appropriate to me.  More than fair, in fact, given that it was not moved to the 'alt' wasteland of filth which I would be hard pressed to argue as inappropriate:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84941.0

I've got one more relatively important think to say about 'bakcoin', and a lot of loose ends from the lively conversation with one of the sharper knives in the bitcointalk.org drawer which I may or may not fill in depending on what else I've got going.

Heh.  Someone (who can) seems to have taken a mulligan on this forum thread.  Unsurprising really.

It's not about 'my vision'.  Open-source is not an easy concept to grasp.  I'm sorry, but it's also not my fault.

From an implementation point of view and in the interest of balancing optimization against robustness, I might consider something like this:

 - Developers (in conjunction with other leaders) implement highly important decisions as code which simply honors settings which only secret-key holders can induce.

 - Once a decision has been reached ('the votes are counted') the next release might optimize the decision in code.

 - For flexibility and visibility, the code with deals with decisions like this would probably be implemented as modular plugins.

Methods for verifying integrity and absorbing 'updates' and the like are quite solid and old hat at this point.  If there is some focus on avoiding spaghetti code, and in particular, constructing a well thought out reference implementation for 'voting' which is auditable, that would go a long way toward developing the necessary level of confidence in the solution.


The 'network effect' (as I visualize it) is a highly valued moderating factor in a well functioning open-source solution.  Let's use Bitcoin as an example here:

Let's say that most people liked BIP17, but Gavin and relatively few others liked BIP16.  He could still implement it and the project would not come off it's rails because it although a majority is annoyed and some of their hopes for certain things are dashed, it's not a show-stopper and a large part of the community trusts him and his decisions allthesame.

Now instead lets say that Gavin made an obscure hack which transferred everyone's BTC to his address and pumped out an 'emergency fix' that everyone should update to ASAP.  Of course the code would fork almost immediately and a bad actor would be reduced from the community.  Probably in that bad of a scenerio transactions would be rolled back even.  Bitcoin would be damaged, but would survive.

---

As an aside, I personally build all of my releases from HEAD.  I do some cursory evaluation of the repository, but I've not the time or skill to identify well constructed exploits so my evaluations tend to just be to identify points of likely stability.

Part of the reason I do things this way is that I enjoy it, but another part is that if I stopped trusting the dev team, I would be prepared to look after the value I hold in Bitcoin anyway.  Or at least have a fighting chance of doing so.


I've already stated that all I have at this point is a neglected thought experiment, but you seem to keep asking for instrumented binaries (ok, and overstatement.)

I tossed off some implementation detail on-the-fly above.  Really though, if you cannot rather effortlessly envision at least the possibility of implementing 'veto' in a Bitcoin-like crypto-currency solution, and even a workable skeletal framework, it is somewhat pointless to try to enlighten you much further on this particular aspect of things.

Never mind.  I just noticed that you seem to use posts as free advertising for whatever you think might make you some bucks or whatever.  That explains your rather pointless spam.  If I cared enough I would validate my hypothesis to see if you ever really post anything of value...but I don't.

Maybe I'll submit a patch to clean up the mess from freeloading captains-of-industry-in-waiting like yourself.

It's so nice to see so many other valuable contributions like yours showing up and adding to the value :^)

Themos would probably consider a well constructed patch to the software he is running.

Poor cypherdoc.  Just cannot stay away from the sharp end of the golden bull or various other things in the environment.  I suggest you don't go hiking where there are poisonous snakes...your nature is not conducive to survival in such conditions.

Very well, we'll continue on than.  Regrettably for my employer, you've been robbing him somewhat lately, but that's completely my fault and I can make up for it over time.  I'm busy only for a few more weeks then I'll have as much time to direct to whatever interests me.

I actually think I've been doing a much better job than I thought myself capable of of explaining the nuts and bolts of 'bakcoin', and tangentially certain things about open-source and Bitcoin generally that you seem ignorant about.  I sense that your failure to pick up on some of them is more a reflection of your own closed-mindeness and dogma than any native inabilities, but the net effect is the same.  It's also a bit difficult to know exactly what you consider a 'win' or 'shoot down'.  In your mind there seem to be many...which is non-impressive to me, but I'm sure thrills the hell out of a lot of the pom-pom waver types.

But I will persevere if you insist...just for the general betterment of the human condition.

MS:

I'm about ready to wrap this up, and I'm sure a lot of others are as well.  You are completely correct that 'bakcoin' is nowhere near ready for presentation and I was not initially planning to do so.  I have very much appreciated your critiques and questions and would be happy to discuss such things further with anyone who has an interest.

Just one more thing, however, since it is quite key:


There are a zillion - handful of issues that I've not thought through.  To my amazement, most of the things you have asked about specifically are among the 'handful', including the above.

My answers seem nonchalant.  This is no accident and is utterly key conceptually.

People get ripped off using USD, Bitcoin, and I have every expectation that they would using a 'bakcoin' based crypto-currency.  I'm not trying to fight that battle since it is not winnable.  I would only hope that 'bakcoin' (or such solution) could provide some help against abuse of many different forms.

The key aspect here would be that 'bakcoin' itself remains very simple and thus flexible and robust.

It's up to the various exchange currencies live or die on their own merits, but their trajectory and details are of no consequence to the other exchange crypto-currencies (aside form healthy competition to attract users.)

This contrasts with our mainstream dept-based fiat monetary systems which are what I call 'monolithic' insofar as they are prone to catastrophic failure of one necessary aspect of their function is destroyed.  I have a legitimate and honest concern that Bitcoin could end up with a similar weakness.  My concern may or may not be valid, and even if it is, the weakness may or may not be realized.  Only time will tell.

...and to induce large populations to transition into Bitcoin.

Of course ;^)

Perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that the only thing standing between our poor friend cyperdoc and indigence is 'time'.  Sadly he'll probably be dragging a lot of his subscribers down with him.

As am I.  I consider a deep level of skepticism to be a good thing.  Particularly wrt cryto-currencies.


As far as I'm concerned, I've not been unfair in my critiques and concerns about Bitcoin.  I have been harsh and smart-ass with them from time to time.  This is in part because I rather enjoy some push-back, and because I feel that it helps make points that stick.  If Bitcoin and it's community is to weak to deal with such a thing, then there is less hope than I imagined.

I do find it somewhat amusing that the very people who crow endlessly about 'free markets' seem to react to any non-Bitcoin crypto-currency as a snail reacts to salt.

In fact, I spent a lot of energy trying to figure out how Bitcoin could serve this function.  That was my natural first instinct.  Eventually I concluded that Bitcoin has some bloat problems that are not practical to address (for _this_ purpose) and also that designing aspects of a purpose-oriented backing store were such a big win that that made the most sense.


They are certainly welcome to try.  I suspect they would not be trusted enough to be successful.  Certainly they would not be by me.


I envision that the development/management team would be responsible for including 'ballot questions'.  People who control BKC value would 'vote' in a similar way to performing any other type of transaction.  Just like the real world, lotsa people probably would not care about lotsa things enough to bother to vote at all.

As for who watches the watchers, it's just like any other open-source project.  If the development team is to corrupt or out-of-sync with the users, some other group will be successful in creating a fork.  So, the users watch the watchers.  Or are the watchers I guess.


That's an implementation detail.  In this context, if the userbase itself became so 'corrupt' that they were interfering with the goals of the project, a decision to allow or not allow a seemingly legitimate new exchange crypto-currency a slot might be made on the basis of enough users using enough of their limited supply of vetos.  I mention this just as an illustration of how a degree of flexibility and design can be used to address various kinds of unexpected issues.


I sense that you are significantly challenged and are actually having to stretch a little bit to remain comfortably inside your intellectual shell.  But you are laudably and bravely putting in some effort and challenging me to dredge back and defend some of my thoughts on these matters.  And I find that enjoyable.

I used to, but don't really any more.  I don't think there was any specific thing, but more that he has competition who I find more palatable and interesting.  He also failed significantly IMHO wrt the EURO.  I think he's prone to blinder-like things insofar as his negative feelings about one thing translate to myopic support for another.

I had always planned to do that if/when the material was ready...and if the forum was still a worthwhile venue for presentation at that time.  As it happened, I was challenged about whether I had thought about any solutions to the things about Bitcoin that I consider weaknesses.  And the conversation evolved from there.

Just out of curiosity...  Threads drift off-topic to a vastly larger degree than this one has (and it's arguable that this one actually has.)  Lots of people just ignore conversations which don't really interest them.  This one seems to have really gotten under your skin.  Why do you suppose that is?

Actually, perhaps it would help to understand one another's thought patterns and thus make explaining things a bit easier to switch things around for a change:
-----
Would you be adverse to the existence of any other crypto-currency solution besides Bitcoin?

If so, what would make it palatable?

If not, why not?

When it comes to gold prognostication, there is not better poster-child for FAIL than Prechter.  It amazes me that he has the balls to utter the word at this time.

Hey CD, how'd ya like the golden bull horn up the ass today?  Looked painful.  And I guess you'll be nursing that one all weekend.  I suggest that you cover or get used to it happening again and again...and it does not seem like I'm the only one trying to help you out here.

Firstly, open-source is a no-brainer given for a lot of things, and this one in particular.

Various things:

 - 1)  It would provide services which were hardened by the sum total of the crypto-currencies using the solution.  Thus it does not become as much of a concern to have a 'just add water' userbase which can withstand vigorous 51% style attacks.

 - 2)  The reasons for 'investing' in a proposed crypto-currency solution would tend to be less about making the investors rich and thus more about other merits that the solution might promise.  I would anticipate that holders of BKC would have a genuine interest in the science of economies more than simply a desire to enrich themselves (because, as I've documented, BKC is not very good at doing that.)  Thus users can use BKC investor interest as a gauge of the value of the exchange crypto-currency.  As I've documented, 'popularity' of an exchange crypto-currency is what keeps BKC investors from losing their shirts so they have a natural alliance with the users in some ways.


I've documented that the entire ownerbase of BKC would have the ability to vote about certain things, and one of them was whether to allow a slot for a newly proposed exchange crypto-currency.  Some obvious scamcoin would be unlikely to make the cut.

I stress that it is a group decision of the BKC holders and not the developers.  Just like Bitcoin, there is no 'my standards' so that is a mute question.  This particular thing may not be a majority rules vote.  It is, in fact, a threat to BKC holders to allow a promising new EC-C in.  If that became a problem it might be more of a veto-power mechanism to make this particular decision.


Sad day.  Lessons would probably be learned about how to recognize and mitigate against such a thing in the future.


It would probably be somewhat rare that the entire BKC backing for an EC-C would be from one owner, and users might want to use that as a warning sign of a potential scam.


That well could be.  I am guessing that some people are picking up on some of it though.  In fact, I'd be surprise if nobody had already thought of more and better ways to address some of the issues just based on my descriptions here.


If they are well designed and implemented, and those who are qualified to evaluate them say they are, then 'that'.  If they are not, then an analysis will reveal that as well...which is good.  Welcome to open-source my friend.


And I'm doing my best to answer clearly and concisely your specific questions.  Both for you, and for others who may have some general interest or even better, be inspired to dream up other ways of addressing various things about crypto-currency ecosystems.

One could argue that the evolved into the birds so I would not call it a total fail.

It would be somewhat more accurate to say that the birds evolved from the dinosaurs, and more accurate yet to say that the dinosaur lines which died off (all of them) had common ancestors with the birds and that those common ancestors were classifiable as forms of dinosaurs.

But whatever the case, a lot of lessons can be learned from biology and many of them can be applied with startling directness to other fields of science and engineering.  Not the least of them, computer related ones.

I think that this one is officially beaten to death.  I cannot form a meaningful response to such a deep misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say here.


I think you are gravely ignorant of what gives opens-source it's strength.  Satoshi could be an Illuminati shape-shifter and Gavin an evil rat bastard and it would make no difference to Bitcoin in the here and now.  The code is available for peer review and analysis, and Bitcoin is interesting enough that it's undergone it's fair share.

Beyond that, a well designed crypto-currency (and a lot of other things) will be pretty hardened against exploitation by 'insiders' by the definition of a good design if nothing else.  Bitcoin is this way, and has set a high bar which will almost have to be followed by similar cryto-currencies which may come after.  If they are going to be successful anyway.  SolidCoin seemed, in the cursory glance I had at it, to have deviated significantly and was quite unsuccessful (by my definition which basically comes down to whether users found it useful or not.)


'very similar' leave a lot of wiggle-room which is or great interest to users.  Some of these which come to mind include:

 - mining style (mem vs. ops meaning can most users compete with pro miners.)
 - cycle frequency (10 min?  60min? etc.)
 - voting rights (if voting is implemented.)
 - transaction fees.
 - true user-level p2p or no.
 - convertibility (if convertibility to backing store is a design feature...and there exists a backing store.)

etc, etc, etc.  Most or all of these things have trade-offs.  Having multiple experiments along different lines is very conducive to evolution toward design balances which work for the end-user.

Were I to have choices, I believe that I (and most users) would have the ability to:

 - seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms determining if something is a scamcoin or not.

 - choose several, if not many, different crypto-currencies for different uses depending on the needs I happened to have.

edit: fix quotes