This is an old concept but good one. This used to apply in this nation and I certainly preferred it.
Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others? Shouldn't the law that regulates property only be handled by the property owners that the law mainly affects in the first place?
You are too soft on the spineless losers who make up the citizenry of your fair land. Only the 1% should have the vote. Ironicly, less than 1% actually do have a vote. The ritutual of voting for president every four years is an official poll, not a vote. Nor is it 'democracy' in any direct sense. The citizen casts his vote for his choice, then electors are gathered together to vote on who is president. It's called the electoral system, and it usually has the same results, but it hasn't always and doesn't have to. Most states bind their electors to the majority will of the state's citizenry for the first vote, but if there isn't a majority winner the first go, the electors can then vote for whomever they wish. Very few states bind their electors for as many as three votes, but none beyond that. Even so, the consequences for voting contrary (it's not a secret vote, btw) are not all that huge. Yeah, the electoral college has got to go. |
|
|
|
I just had another idea. What about, instead of finding some giant risk-willing investor, we make it crowd-funded? UBE could offer the Bitcoin community that they deposit any amount of Dollars at an exchange, hand over the money to UBE using a redeemable code, and get a 1% interest rate (or whatever is possible) on this deposit. The Dollars would be used as reserves, and the interests paid by UBE would be funded by the fees paid by its customers. That way we spread out the risk between more parties. So instead of one giant investor risking to lose millions of dollars, many people would risk losing whatever comparably small amount they have invested (in return for an interest on their investment).
So I would go to UBE's website, look up where it needs funding, deposit - for example - $100 to my Mt. Gox account, create a redeemable code for this, and send it to UBE. They would be able to use this money as a reserve, and would pay out interests in either Bitcoins (to some specified address) or Dollars (by sending me redeemable Mt. Gox codes for the USD interests every x days). Of course this requires than an exchange enables moving traditional currency easily between accounts on that exchange.
To build on that idea, create UBE as a coop. People deposit what they want to be used as reserves, and instead of paying 1% interest, pay a percentage of the income from fees based on the amount they have deposited. First pay operating expenses from the fees (including salaries, where needed), and divvy up the remaining fee income to the reserve depositors. |
|
|
|
The only point of a government should be is to protect and sustain property rights.
I agree with a libertarian point of view, but anarchy is not in our best interests. United we stand, divided we fall. We need a Federal government so we can organize our collective defense, negotiate with other nations, to defend (not grant, obviously) our natural rights such as life, liberty, self-defense, etc. Government is also useful to mediate between people when there are disagreements. So, no, protecting property rights is no the only function of government. |
|
|
|
|
A couple features I'd love to see:
-- a transaction history of my BTC balance including all deposits, withdrawals, purchases, sales, and received dividend payments.
-- a received dividends history for each of my assets (and an aggregate)
|
|
|
|
The encryption tools / techniques are awesome man. Don't throw away your idea because some people don't understand. Maybe a hybrid of the two ideas, but don't go completely fluffy.
+1. Of course, the general aspect and usability of the web interface could be (much) improved, but the system is very good as it is. I agree. There's not a huge need to change the current in-browser encryption, just fix the interface. For example, have users set up a normal server-side website account with username and password. When I'm in this account, I can see all my "trading accounts", which hold my assets. These trading accounts are stored encrypted server-side. If a good passphrase is used, they are useless to someone breaking in. When I want to use one of the trading accounts, I enter my passphrase and the account is decrypted client side, and I can use it, much like I currently can. Then fix all the other UI stuff like making it easy to list and search all assets, see history and charts for them, etc. |
|
|
|
Would there be any motivation on the part of the current existing exchanges to facilitate this new exchange? Perhaps by lowering fees and/or providing easier ways to move funds around. By my way of thinking, existing exchanges (even the market leader) would win by this, since it would drive more business their way (if they have the best price)?
The smaller exchanges would benefit but MtGox would "lose". It would make their "biggest & most liquid status" less important. It would be in the best interest of every other exchange to assist though. That makes a lot of sense. If all the other exchanges teamed up, it would be a good thing for them and for the end customer. The exchanges (less MtGox) could all agree to lower their fee to something that's really low (0.001%) and assist in keeping funds balanced between exchanges. In fact this new unified exchange could be a joint project created by all the "other" exchanges and partially owned by them. |
|
|
|
I meant to imply I wasn't going to post here any more.... But I guess that didn't work.  |
|
|
|
Only people whose last name starts with B should be allowed to vote.
It's not the same. We're talking about force and people's property here and the rules that regulate it. Only including those who are affected by the laws is very relevant. It is equally insane. Voting affects many thousands of things, one of which is property owners' rights. |
|
|
|
|
Would there be any motivation on the part of the current existing exchanges to facilitate this new exchange? Perhaps by lowering fees and/or providing easier ways to move funds around. By my way of thinking, existing exchanges (even the market leader) would win by this, since it would drive more business their way (if they have the best price)?
|
|
|
|
|
Only people whose last name starts with B should be allowed to vote.
|
|
|
|
You take care now. |
|
|
|
Bwagner: I was just going to post that! That page is part of a very good introduction to the EC math. The start of that intro is here: http://www.certicom.com/index.php/10-introductionnetrin: An analogy with "baby numbers" would go somewhat like this. I have to abstract some cryptography properties though. Person A comes up with a number, say 13, and calls this private key 1. He then calculates the public key, which is (for example) "accb". This public key has the property that it can be easily calculated from the private key, but it also has the property that if you only know "accb", then there is no way to find out the private key was 13, unless you bruteforce all numbers by calculating the public key to all of them. Person B comes up with a number, say 41, and calls this private key 2. He then calculates the public key, which is (for example) "bbbb". Person A gets the public key from Person B, and adds it to his own: "accb" + "bbbb" = "cddd" Person B gets the public key from Person A, and adds it to his own: "bbbb" + "accb" = "cddd" Now they both have the public key "cddd", so they can send money to that public key. To retrieve the money, however, you need to have the private key. The private key to "cddd" is 13 + 41 = 54. But no one knows this! That's roughly how you create a private key that no one knows. I would like to note that this is NOT diffie-hellman secret generation, as far as I know! Neither party knows the private key here, and in fact, any attacker listening to the network could know the private key too. This doesn't matter too much though, since the private key is what you need to get the money. EC diffie-hellman looks similar but is slightly different. In fact it's more like what ByteCoin described early on in the thread. In order not to confuse the thread/topic, I'll just link to the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_Diffie%E2%80%93HellmanWrong thread? |
|
|
|
|
libbitcoin.org seems to be unreachable?
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice looking boards.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
