Technically, if you want to use GAAP, Bitcoin issued 21 million coins back in 2009 and hasn't done anything since then.

1) open exchange
2) sweep all deposits into bitcoin savings and trust (pirate bonds)
3) ...

No, you did a shabby job. You'll understand why later.

May your coin serve as a warning to the community.

That is, if PPCoin hasn't already failed for some other reason at 3 non-coinbase transactions, as the error message may indicate.

Did you test this coin before release?

Why did you change the difficulty calculation?

I think you played with too much, without considering the consequences and drawbacks.

Nice find. Does this have any additional consequences other than the potential denial of service? I guess not based on your description.

I think associating the block reward to the difficulty target is a bad idea. How did you test this?

Your idea seems to be more sensitive to correct timestamps. How did you test this?

This seems like a pyramid scheme rather than a currency because you center your work on an idea which will paralyze money velocity, "coin age."

I don't understand the problem you claim to be solving "energy efficiency" could you please expand on this idea, since it is so central to your coin?

What algorithm did you use to "continuously adjust" the difficulty? Sounds dangerous.

Thanks Charlie. Your methods are the best I've seen so far.

Minimizing the amount of time you are in custody of money reduces both risk for your business and the customers.

Also, using cash handlers who have established BSA policies and procedures helps reduce the number of regulatory hurdles the industry has built around itself.

For those interested parties starting Bitcoin businesses which interface with the outside world I thought I would share this document.

http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/documents/BSA_AML_Man_2010.pdf

Hopefully, this will help you stay within the letter of the law and avoid complications.

Optimal block frequency is determined by the conditions of the network, not the market.

You are making an economic mistake that many bitcoiners do.

As far as the field of economics is concerned, coinbase transactions contain zero information. Its what you do with it, not what it is.

The economic value of bitcoin is the non-coinbase transactions.

It depends on your perspective.

From an accounting perspective this is very true. All the information still exists in the Blockchain, in the orphaned blocks, to accurately reconstruct the attack. The problem is that account (address) credits will be less than their debits.

This transaction condition is enforced by the Bitcoin Client as "not valid." You must always have tx inputs larger than tx outputs.

However from a pure accounting perspective, the account would show a negative balance. This happens a lot in the real world, and there are established ways to deal with it.

This is why I consider the attack to not be a "rewind" attack because it does not destroy the information, it only suppresses it because of the way the Bitcoin client is written.

Can you please delete this quote. I don't have a dog in this fight.

Yes. It's quite simple.

Find this line in your code

bool static Reorganize(CTxDB& txdb, CBlockIndex* pindexNew)

and change it into this

// bool static Reorganize(CTxDB& txdb, CBlockIndex* pindexNew)

What a fun read!

Unfortunately, most readers do not understand the asset, unless mining is involved.

And for that usage they are probably correct in thinking that GLBSE is adequate, for now.

Using energy to secure the network isn't bitcoin's archaism. Using energy to secure the financial system is a condition that has existed for all of human history. The question: how much energy?

I think Bitcoin uses a lot less energy than any other possible solution. We're trying to trying our hardest to turn the economy from a horse and buggy to a Carnot cycle. Anybody with notions that the Bitcoin method of securing the blockchain is not "sustainable" or "green" has not considered how much energy is spent in just one day of a War. What are we not trying to do? We are NOT trying to create a perpetual motion machine.

Many in the community think Bitcoin has value something simply because scarcity is programmed into it. I agree that this, alone, is meaningless.

Freicoin will be more stable for those that actually want to conduct business with the currency and not have to worry about it greatly appreciating (or depreciating) due to external circumstances.

As to your currency proposal, Decrits/EnCoin -- I don't to see any evidence you are actually working on it, or know how to make it happen.  Other than "it would be nice if my currency had a stable value" I don't really see anything. Mark spells out precisely what the mechanism is used to achieve stable value, and it will work.

I do not have the technical ability to make Freicoin or any other cryptocurrency happen. Mark does. So I help in what ways I can. If you believe in your EnCoin idea you should help too, because this is your best bet for it to actually happen. One step closer is vastly superior to nothing at all.

What may be more interesting is that the entire community regards this as being impossible.

To those of you who are claiming what we are doing is easy or a cheap scam, think again.

I'm basically done with it. Here is the output of my bitcoin test client on the current block chain. This is a sum of the accumulation of all "errors" that the controller would try to remove from the current system. The vertical scale is roughly time between blocks(the units are unspecified due to filter overlap), and the horizontal scale is block number/72. This means the network would readjust once every 12 hours (72 blocks)



Positive slope means easier difficulty, negative slope means harder than current controller. Zero slope means the current controller is good. This is inverted from the graphs on sipa's website you've probably seen before.