From Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_Man_%28film%29

"Some aspects of the film allude to Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World."

"based on" is a poor choice of words.

I've read parts of the book.  We might replace Fordism with Zuckism.  Facebook doesn't just enable people to connect with each other, it mediates and organizes the communications in ways that influence behavior.

The result is a kind of enforced conformity which results in massive profits for a very few, and poverty for everyone else (that's the whole point of the design of the system).  This alludes to the world depicted in the movie, where an invisible starving population lives underneath an affluent and secure one.

My point is that it is the rebels living underground who would be the ones who would use bitcoin.  And it would be outlawed, of course.  The DarkWallet project is a case in point.  I think the devs see themselves as being part of a rebellion.

I don't think so, it's more likely a reference to bank cards, which people now use instead of cash (and operate through encoded account numbers). 

In my view it means that P2P commerce has been eliminated and all transactions are mediated and approved by the 'authorities'.

Probably no reference to crypto codes.  Bitcoin functions more like cash.

Great movie, though.  And strangely predictive.  The script was based on Huxley's 'A Brave New World' is my understanding.

This is a great experimental use for blockchains.

Colored coin type protocol layers will work for this purpose, but using them will require that you enforce the rules in the client.

If you use Etherium, the miners will enforce the rules for you (your code is injected into the network) and it probably will be much less work to implement.

You might want to look into "The People's Republic of Doug".  It's a joke, I guess, but may still be instructive.

I've also developed some stuff that runs on the bitcoin net (for collectible digital assets, at http://rarebit.github.io/project ), but it was more work than expected (I am planning an Ether version of the app).  If Ether had been available when I started, I would have used it for sure.

The corporate model of content distribution (eg., iTunes) relies on control and force of law to prevent people from using alternative pipelines.  This approach has had some success, but it comes with high negative social costs (to maximize profits, greater control over the networks will be exercised - i.e, Net Neutrality Lost Cause - the result is greater and greater wealth concentration - one might correctly assert that millions are driven into poverty as a result).

There are alternative models that allow content to be freely distributed while still providing income to the artists and authors.

As a case in point, I've been working on a system that issues records of a digital work into the blockchain and allows those records to be exchanged.  That digital content can thus be considered 'unique' and collectible.

  See http://rarebit.github.io/project  (you can use testnet to play around with the web client without spending actual bitcoins)

The record is like a stock certificate that could potentially increase in value if the content originator becomes celebrated (it's not unusual to see works by living artists selling for millions apiece).

A photographer on flickr, for example, might issue limited editions of a few photographs and allow fans to buy them.  The sale might include legal rights, like allowing the purchaser to print the file and exhibit it in a public place, or resell that physical print alongside the blockchain record that authenticates it.

For an unknown artist just starting out, the tokens might be worthless at first, and people might pay for them simply because they want to support work they think is worthwile (like receiving a thank you gift for a donation).

Another use case might be a musician that issues a special 'collectors edition' MP3 (perhaps limited to 1000 copies).

An author might perform an online book signing (and still remain anonymous if the content is seditious).

Yet another use case might be signing autographs for people who show up on a twitter account at a specific time (if this were done randomly it might help encourage people to visit the page more often - these sorts of manipulations I hereby denounce).  In this case just the digital signature would be recorded and traded.

ANNOUNCEMENT: New Rarebit* client (alpha) is online now:

http://rarebit.github.io/project/

Full client that runs in the browser with a modern UI.  Loads, hashes, issues editions, and transfers lots of digital works.  Shows/plays supported media in app background.  In this implementation, issue transactions carry the author's signature and thus serve as timestamped certificates of authenticity.

Release notes:

There are bugs.  This alpha downloads from Testnet (when Sync is selected).  An author/owner identity can be created, then seed funding can be added using a testnet faucet (instructions in app).  Issue transactions will post, but not xfer transactions yet due to a bug (they will still be added to internal cache to simulate the xfer for demonstration).

The option to add a URL (pointer to content) to an issue tx is not yet implemented.

Firefox is recommended (TOR browser).  Some minimal testing was performed on a version of Chrome.


* The Rarebit protocol works by associating the hash of digital content with a small amount of bitcoin value, producing a 'token' that is provably bound to the content it represents. The token is also provably bound to the author.  Proves existence, authorship, originality.

A standard text format for "sig codes" that can be sent between users is what multisig needs.

Can this become a BIP?  Something like this can become a standard that all the wallets and other services can support.

But, ...

Would it be better to use JSON clear text, so the user can see what tx/out/etc the sig refers to?  Otherwise, users will get several sigcodes mixed up and go crazy.

I like the concept of DarkWallet, but it needs to use true P2P to negotiate the mixing.  I was just pointing out that by running a server, the developers may be exposing themselves to potential criminal liability.  If all they do is release software, they're safe (at least this seems to be the current understanding of the law).

They target the users machines with specially designed malware (assuming the server is as secure as believed).  Once they decide the server is facilitating illegal activity, they will move in.

Best to be paranoid.

Are you guys running a server?

I'm not a laywer, but:

If that is the case, that server could be shut down and Mr. Wilson and cohorts arrested for "running a service" that "facilitates" or supports illegal activity.  Its clear that DarkWallet will be attractive to people who are doing things that are considered 'illegal'.

If I'm not mistaken, Liberty Reserve and eGold were shut down for the same reason.  Liberty Reserve's founder is apparently facing a long prison sentence (the charges against him include his boastings about the service's illegal utility).

The developers of Bitcoin, and BitTorrent for that matter, don't face legal liability because they just write the software.  They don't actually operate anything.

I like DarkWallet, but hopefully the 'decentralised aspect' will improve very soon.  The us is obviously going to do some very intensive traffic analysis on whatever server(s) you're operating.

I hope you can achieve this, it's sorely needed.


Also, I didn't know about TimeKoin.  I was investigating cryptocoins that eliminate mining and was thinking it might be a good idea simply to allow a randomly selected user to create the next block.

There is also Emunie, which works by rewarding prior work with newly minted coins, i.e, it pays wages.  It also attempts to peg the price of the coin to the US$ or basket of commodities.  It's also closed-source, so its not really an option for adoption, but I found it interesting.

Also, I think you are using the terms 'socialist', 'collectivist', etc. improperly.  There are anarchic forms of these political philosophies, which many believe are the ligit ones.

What you are referring to are the centralized, statist forms.  'State capitalism' is the preferred term for the system practiced in the former soviet union. 

Crony capitalism, what many believe we are now suffering from, is very closely related to state capitalism.  It masquerades as a 'free market', but is composed of what are essentially state-sponsored monopolies.

I don't see how verifiable CPU-only mining solves the processing power advantage in mining.  Pools, farms, and botnets can still be used get an advantage.

Don't you need to enforce a "one connection per person please" policy somehow?  If there's a mathematically rigorous way to do this of course that's the way to go.

I was thinking that the network might require a user to solve a capcha to connect and timing out the connection after a few hours (probably already has been proposed).  I know, this is terrible idea but it might be effective at keeping the mining egalitarian, which I think is what you are aiming at.

Capchas are annoying, a more rigorous approach is needed.  But it may only be necessary to require that a capcha be solved to connect to the network (with the connection being dropped after some number of hours to require re-connection).  Farms and botnets might be thwarted that way.

Processing power advantage is real problem for cryptocoins.  It is why bitcoin is heading toward mining monopolies, making the dreaded 51% attack possible.  As mining becomes more difficult, fewer and fewer people can afford the equipment to succeed at it.  And pools just confer processing power advantage to the central authorities that manage them.

I think these would be considered wages (income), not ROI.  It is payment for work, not investment.  The interest paid might be considered ROI.  I suppose if the distribution is based on *all* previous work performed, then early adopters could get progressively higher wages (a larger cut of the distributions), but this might be disturbed by a flood of new workers entering the system (assuming they each are paid something for the smaller amount of work they've performed).

Anyway, this is a bit off the cuff.  I'll look into it more.


[edit]
If the coin takes off, the early adopters could potentially get huge payouts as massive minting is stimulated.  Yes, they are wage slaves, but gilded ones like wall street workers with their lavish bonuses.

But new workers would rush in, perhaps diluting subsequent payouts.  Depends on the exact algo used.

Also, bitcoin has long periods of stable price.  emunie won't need to increase supply during these periods, so I'm presuming it will pay nothing, a potential problem.

A very interesting experiment to watch when it goes live.

BTW, if I work for the system for some time, then sell my coins and quit, will my prior work still qualify me for payouts, i.e., can I retire to the south of France with my emunie pension?

Well, I guess this is the problem many are frustrated about, information that is too vague.  I have stumbled onto emunie only recently, and am astonished by the vitriol surrounding it.

I can understand that in the current cryptocoin climate, a source code release would result in a flurry of pointless clones with minor tweaks.

However, the community at large needs to properly vet the claims being made.  If a whitepaper is released, there are many smart people in the bitcoin community who can help to identify potential vulnerabilities in the system before it may be too late.

If the perception is that your system is proprietary, it may have a negative impact on its adoption.  I suppose a mainstream audience may not care, so perhaps that is the gamble.

Etherium: hype, maybe not a scam.  I personally don't see why they need $35m.

Emunie is interesting in some ways.

The emonie developer, however mercurial and paranoid he may be, has recognized that mining in bitcoin is mostly superfluous.  The most valuable work in the network is transaction clearing and validation, and it is this work that should be subsidized with new coins (no more need for transaction fees).  Mining in bitcoin is just a way to pick who gets to create the next block by running a race.  Picking who gets to create the next block can be done in some random way, which is more egalitarian.

Possible cons:

Proprietary, whitepaper and source code withheld.  Can't be properly vetted by the community.

Statement to the effect that emunie "will comply with the law" or attempt to disallow illegal activity.  What this means in practice is hidden back-doors for law enforcement/nsa/etc, blacklisted accounts, and a host of other nightmares (the source is withheld, ouch).

The coins can't appreciate in value (any increase in value causes new coins to to flood into the network).  Appreciation is incentive for early adopters, since early on the coins will have little use.  The fact that users will be granted a stream of coins for just connecting may be alluring at first, but disappointment and abandonment may follow (the first paycheck from that first minimum wage job is nice, then you realize just how long it will take for you to actually earn anything substantial).

Might be overrun by botnets or farms, which could sweep up most of the new coins generated.  Worse, a botnet could send transactions between its nodes to stimulate what appears to be demand.  Most cryptocoins can be abused by botnets, but emunie's network might be stimulated to respond with a coin flood (I'm a bit unsure on this point, maybe not possible/feasible?).

Conclusion:

Some of Emunie's ideas are good ones, but emunie itself is not a candidate for adoption.  It would be nice to see a group of open source developers adapt those ideas into a new altcoin.



 

Are there any cryptocoin protocols that permanently remove the processing power advantage in mining in a mathematically verifiable way, so that specialized equipment can never be developed to game the algorithms?   Perhaps a genetic algo that evolves?

Thwarting botnets and other parallel processing attacks seems difficult if you rely on processors to do the work.  What about requiring a human to participate in the work?  Maybe image recognition work that computers currently can't do like solving capchas?

I started development on Rarebit before the colored coin group really formed for real and got things going.  In my spec, I acknowledge Meni Rosenfeld's paper, which I read when I started my development.

Yes, Rarebit can be thought of as a specialized colored coin protocol (as can mastercoin), and it might be possible to make Rarebit interoperable with colored coin.

The colored coin protocol is a bit in flux right now, so this would be something to look at in six months or so.

I'll read more into how the new colored coin spec addresses originations, and also what mechanism is used to protect colored coin outputs from accidental redemption by normal wallets.  Also I'm a big fan of brainwallet passphrases, so if using them presents difficulties, that would be a problem.

All this stuff is very new, so we'll see what happens....

UPDATE JUNE 2014: A New Rarebit client (alpha) is online now:

http://rarebit.github.io/project/

A full client that runs in the browser with a modern UI.  Loads, hashes, issues editions, and transfers lots of digital works.  Shows/plays supported media in app background.

See last post below for more.  The new client uses the hash of a file directly instead of putting it into a certificate.  The issue tx carries the author's sig and so serves as a timestamped certificate once added to a block.  Proves existence, authorship, originality.

------------------------------------


Rarebit is a protocol designed to enable collectible digital works to be issued and traded on the bitcoin network.

Using a Rarebit client, an artist or author can issue digitally signed limited editions of a work online, and collectors can trade units of the edition with the assurance they are authentic.

Whitepaper:
  http://rarebit.github.io/project/doc/rbprimer.html

Baseline reference client:
  http://rarebit.github.io/project/client/min

  *runs in the browser (implemented in client-side javascript); early beta suitable mostly for demonstration at this time.


Protocol summary:

1. A work is signed by the author: A digital certificate is created to accompany the work, and a bitcoin address is generated that uniquely identifies the signed work.

2. Editions of a signed work are issued by the author: Transactions are broadcast to the bitcoin network that record the work's ID and quantity.

3. Units of an edition are aquired and traded among collectors:
  a. The author signs over units to collectors in new transactions.
  b. Current owners sign over units to new owners in additional transactions.

4. The provenance of a unit is demonstrated: The linked transactions stored in bitcoin's public ledger are scrutinized to ensure a unit originates from the author and has not been duplicated.

A work is typically a digital file such as a photo, video, or ebook.

Rarebit, like bitcoin, is "trustless", i.e., confidence is placed in cryptographic proof instead of a central authority.  Rarebit is not a copyright enforcement ("digital rights management") scheme. The protocol defines no capability for restricting how a work can be consumed. Rarebit merely distinguishes collectible copies from all others.

You can also spend coins by generating (signing) a transaction on an offline computer, then use a thumbdrive or sd card to move the raw tx to a service that will broadcast that tx to the bitcoin network for you.  That way, your private key or brainwallet passphrase need never be revealed to a computer with an internet connection (and its possible collection of installed malware).

There are wallets, such as brainwallet.org that can be run on an offline computer.