There is more to an alt-coin then merely attempting a pump-and-dump.  I am intrigued with the concept of a distributed anonymous corporation, which I independently observed.  I see alt-currencies as an attempt to see the results of tweaking various factors of the BitCoin protocol.  If BitCoin is the "single-celled" organism in a new evolutionary ecosystem, then introducing some mutations into the "DNA" might result in a stronger organism -- or at least in stronger organelles for other distributed anonymous corporations.

While I feel that the niche for capital exchange is nicely filled currently by BitCoin, there are certainly other niches worth exploring.  However, if the community wants to experiment with the BitCoin protocol itself I thought it might be more intellectually honest to provide the following framework for testing alternative capital-exchange protocols.   Why not announce a definite begin and end time in terms of block-chain number accepted into the BitCoin main block chain, and run the DAE on a temporary basis, with startup, running and dissolution phases, much like the life cycle of insects.  There could be a long port-mortem period with discussions regarding the merits and limitations of each "mutation".  A pool of BTC could be crowd sourced, which is distributed at the dissolution phase on a merit basis. 

With myself as an Austrian Economist and the belief in the 50-year business depression cycle, I believe that the personal computer boom is what held the 1979 depression from fully materializing.  We are again in an economy similar to 1979; I hope that the emergence of an eco system of true distributed anonymous corporations, DAC's, may well keep the credit contraction threat at bay for yet another generation.  --LeeO   

If the argument against Bitcoin is that there is no physical backing to the rare numbers, consider the following:

I can envision a Distributed Autonomous Corporation [ ref www.letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics ] that permits holders of slabbed gold or silver coins [ ref http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/slabbeddefined.htm ] to sell covered calls on these assets, denominated in BTC.

One of the arguments against holding gold coins is that the money in this form, though it has no counterparty risk, has no associated income other than capital gains.  This would provide the holder of the gold or silver asset an interest income that is genuinely market set.

To the argument that there is no physical backing to BTC, simply purchase a few covered calls to guard against a BTC crash.  A critical mass of BTC to Au or Ag coins in the form of enforceable options would serve as a ballast, the way a genuine gold backing has to United States Dollars before the Federal Reserve Act.  --LeeO

I have given up doing business with e-bay due to problems being both a buyer and being a seller.

As a buyer, I have occasionally misplaced winning small bids on an item.  Realizing that the item does not justify the shipping costs, I simply remit the bid amount for the item with the instructions not to ship.  Usually I am then subject to unlisted "inconvenience fees", as if simply relisting the item is more trouble for the seller than shipping it, even after having received the amount of the winning bid.

More problematic is my issues as a seller.  Since the auction is published to close at an absolute time, software has evolved to bid up an item seconds before the close.  This successfully hides the real interest in the item, so that obscure items routinely grossly undersell.  Contrast this to the experience of attending a real auction.  The auctioneer sings out asking prices in cadence, and if no bid is received in cadence announces "going once".  In a cadence about one-third the bid-up cadence, "going twice" is announced.  At this point an interesting game emerges.  The auctioneer is attempting to dig up any additional interest in the item to maximize his commission which also helps the consigner.  At the same time the auctioneer is eager to get to the next lot to move things along.  At an unexpected time, "sold" is announced, and the auction closes.

The emergence of new valid blocks in the block chain can automate this process and remove the advantage buyers have of bidding for items seconds before the announced close.   Unlike in e-bay, a listed item is in the "preview" state with a deadline time.  In this state, e-bay's model applies, but the bids received only serve to place the "opening bid" amount.  At the emergence of the first valid block after the deadline time, the auction then "goes live".  In this state, ask and bid prices are listed, and new bids are received.  At the emergence of each new block, the winning bidder during the previous block period is required to send his bid amount.  If in at the emergence of the next block he is outbid, he is credited back his bid amount, otherwise "going once" is declared.  The appearance of the next valid block without any additional bids declares "going twice".  The auction then closes after the next block appears without any bids received.  Any bids placed during any of these "going" periods reverts the auction to the "live" state.

Since the emergence of new blocks is a Poisson process with an unpredictable exact event time, attempting to hide interest in an item by bidding close to the close risks losing the bid.  It also holds the auction open for the duration of the appearance of two additional new valid blocks in the block chain.  Further, the validation waiting time is built in, and the consigner and auctioneer may then be paid immediately.  --LeeO

With regard to the phenomenon of having Bitcoin the first de-centeralized truly democratic currency, I can envision the following emerging:  Truly "anonymous society" corporations that are also de-centeralized and run peer-to-peer.  The term for "Inc." in Latin America is "s.a.", meaning _sociedades anónimas_, or anonymous societies.

Using "colored coins" capital in the form of stockholder's equity may be generated.

Trust can be engendered by not providing a single point of vulnerability.  All of the bitcoins received for whatever purpose are encrypted using a one-time pad and stored offside at multiple locations.  The off-side locations are rented for a few micro BTC per time period per Mebibyte.  Already in development are third-party escrow systems for dispute resolution.

For instance, if the business model requires that a number of BTC be stored inaccessible until a time period or other event transpires, they may be programmatically broken out and transferred to the multiple sites.  Other sites may be contracted to look for the expiration of the time period or other event, using a secured voting and results collection method, the way the old Space Shuttle managed their five computers controlling the fly-by-wire system.  On the mutually agreed trigger, the BTC are then reassembled and programmatically spent.

This involves an enormous amount of programming effort, but the corporation is then as provably secure as the bitcoin network.

- - - - -

And finally a little food for thought:  If such corporations come into the bitcoin ecosystem, there would be nothing preventing the proliferation of gambling lotteries or assassination pools outside of the state's control.  The only solution for the sake of order in society would then be the Mark of the Beast.   No internet access except you present your state generated RFID microchip [my dog now has one].

As a contrast, amateur radio represents a society where order is enforced without the compulsion to have the Mark with the employment of call signs.  Except in amateur radio you are legally bound not to express any pecuniary interest.  Instead, the society polices itself and simply labels offenders as "Lids", and presents them with dead silence while at the same time reporting the offenders to the local authorities for prosecution.  --LeeO

Here's some fun ideas I have been playing out in my mind while shoveling the season's first significant snowfall from my driveway:

I.  The testnet pyramid scheme.  There are a number of ways to approach this one.
. A. The soft sell: call it a "gifting club".
. B. The multi-level sell: offer special "insider privileges" for recruiting more suckers into the scheme.
. C. The big hype:  place an add into the click-stream ad net that reads something like:

Yes you too can sucker your friends and family out of their fake play money.  Just fill out the form here and you are on your way.

II. The testnet Ponzi scheme.
. A. The exclusive approach (i.e. Bernie Madoff).  Exclude entry only to those who have 10 testnet BTC or more to outvest.  (my own nounce.)
. B. The public service approach (i.e. Pat Kiley).  Publish scathing articles on the current money system including mostly truths.  Advertise in your publication an outvestment using "arbitrage" to achieve "double-digit" returns on your fake money.  Then pull the plug and run.

III.  The fake paramutual betting pool.
. A. Attract all of the gambling bugs out there (place ads in the click-stream on gaming sites) for your ultra cool gambling site.
. B. Pull the plug and run.

I was thinking with regard to the fake paramutual betting pool to program in a "pull the plug and run" factor with every bet received.  With regard to the Ponzi scheme, why not fake a "raid" on the share holders [this is a simulation, after all], and send them coolly worded letters demanding claw-backs.

If I had the time and technical knowledge it may be fun to program this.  It would be the "Monopoly" of the twenty-first century.  I would program all of the proceeds to be thrown back at the fountain.  However, personal ethics prevents me due to the possibility of someone taking these programs as models for actually doing the real thing.  --LeeO