Great tips. Thanks again.

Suppose you mean the gg speadsheet. Thanks. Fixed.

Added.

All the accounts listed here are at most 'related' to the users. Their relationship, including contribute to/can spend/both/brag about, can't be verified without confirmation from enough users who have dealt business with them.

Users registered by Feb 4, 2013 included.
'Loaded' sounds true, with 40k in balance.

Good point. Formatted. Had to cut the list even shorter to fit in a message.

Now it is, mostly. Anyways that's my best answer to the question for now.
I wonder how anonymous bitcoin can be.

Indeed. Fixed now.

Now a revised version (users registered by Jun 26, 2011), only use the address in signature. Register date included.

I added a revised version in google spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At9fbytjeQvCdFY4a1hiVHJqNkNoemFMQmlabnEwamc&usp=sharing


Fixed.
How I wish to access the forum database! 

INVALID BBCODE: loop, probably unclosed tags

According to the disclaimers of WoT:
"Do not rely on the ratings blindly - since the cost of entry into the web of trust is only one positive rating, it is not impossible for a scammer to infiltrate the system, and then create a bunch of bogus accounts who all inter-rate each other. Talk to people on #bitcoin-otc first, make sure they are familiar with the person you're about to trade with, have traded with him successfully in the past, etc"

So it's about knowing people actually, and the ratings only make sense within the circle that know each other. I see similarities with my idea Credit networks based on real-world relationships. I wonder how many in the WoT know each other's real-world identities?

https://1broker.com/?c=contact
it says "bug- and feature requests send to:" with a '-' after 'bug'


In Searching:
Not sure if it's bug:
when search for 'inc', there's a name "Nokia Oyj" on the bottom, with 0 bid and ask, and it doesn't show in any categories


In 'Open order':
(Chrome Version 24.0.1312.52)
1. it seems that leverage has 1~15 range, as it keeps jumping to 15 input a larger number, but input as 0.1 is allowed, which will jump to 1 when clicking -/+ again, it's confusing.

2. not sure if desired: when right click on the -/+ for leverage, the number auto-decrease/increase, and click again will stop it

3. if input any invalid charactors in leverage, like '-', '*', when there's an amount, the feedback says "In words: If the price of *** goes up by 1% you will win NaN BTC", the NaN looks too Javascript


suggestion:
highlight the current one if selected:
Account Info
Access Log
Transaction Log
Account Settings

How hard is it to create multiple users and rate self in WoT?

BTW I play World of Tanks lol

OH doesn't that mean I'll mine much less soon?

I wonder where the price is generated from, maybe some exchange sites? It's a myth to me so far.

Hi Mike, I haven't gone through all the references but it seems we have two very different ideologies, from what's at the beginning of 'Contracts':
"Contracts ... allow you to solve common problems in a way that minimizes trust. Minimal trust often makes things more convenient by allowing human judgements to be taken out of the loop, thus allowing complete automation"

It's a shame that I can't go through all the details in your proposal for now, but from parts of your London talk and the wiki pages, I feel that they try to secure people's wallet without releasing their identities, by encouraging a system with minimal trust. Assuming it's technically feasible and bulletproof, I wonder what's the overhead will be.

The credit network in my mind seem to have conflicts with privacy, as it relies on the transaction history with real identities (at least accessible by the whole network that the person participates in) kept in the credit network. It seems to me the cheapest way that I can think of.

BTW here's an example (not as a proof that it's cheapest) here are some technical details to handle theft with the system:
If a wallet is stolen from A, the thief have 2 ways to do with it:
1. keep it
2. transfer the bitcoins to a target address T (for simplicity say only one target address)

1. If the thief keeps it forever, so it's just like your physical wallet was stolen on the street, there's nothing you can do other than tracking the thief through police, which for bitcoins is network security experts who may track the stealing. Any techniques that try to make the recovery easier can be complementary.
2. this is most likely. There are two cases:
   a) the target address T is in the credit network, just need to ask that person B, who may or may not the thief, to give the money back. If B gives it back, B's credit doesn't change; if not, then some punishment, like can't transfer from that address again to any address in the network unless payback is done.
   b) the target address T is not in the credit network, try to contact that address or any following target addresses (can be a publicly accessible bulletin) to ask it back. Treat the unresponsive addresses like in a)

Thanks for the reference. I just sent them a request for participating in beta. Also I agree with Technomage in Is Ripple a Bitcoin Killer or Complementer? Founder of Mt Gox will launch Ripple:

"Bitcoin is a great currency so there is a lot of potential here. With Ripple it would be possible to create a superb credit market for Bitcoin.

I think Bitcoin + Ripple could be very big. If the Ripple p2p implementation works, that is."

Thanks a lot for the response. I think I just feel that a technique need to rely on the real-world relationships to thrive.

BTW I just found the Reputation system which seems to try to do it without reveal real identities. Shame I can't post there yet but I am wondering if one can fake identities and rate self.

This is inspired by Trust No One
As I'm a newbie in bitcoin, please excuse my ignorance.
I like bitcoin because of it's distributed nature. I see the benefit to be able to keep the anonymity (seems to me not so robust if one can cross reference the emails and the bitcoin addresses), but for many cases (like online shopping), we need a credit system to build mutual trust. Otherwise it'll be always a chaos of 'get what you can' and 'give nothing back'.

About the anonymity, I see a lot of arguments about how the current financial system ignores the illegal activities under their nose so it's no problem for bitcoin to allow those too. However what one can do or can do better isn't always what one should do, and I look forward to a day when people can use bitcoin addresses as their identity number. If bitcoin keeps the anonymity as its only advantage, it'll become a underworld system, and its rivals will always use this as an excuse to shut it out of the open market.

The escrow service (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Escrow_Service) relies on the escrow partner. In theory it is reliable if everyone using the service know the partner in person, which is itself already a trusted network. So I suppose the idea is to have all these networks merged, so that A can know Z's credit by A-B-C…-Z.

Fairness can't be achieved without transparency.
Financial transparency can only be achieved by distributed system.
Or am I just too naive