Even without corporate charters issued by the government, corporations would still exist. (That is, in the absence of government force to the contrary, investors would still voluntarily band together of their own accord in order to hire employees to manage their collective property, and to split the profits from the revenues derived.)

The only reason that corporations now control the government, is because you do not have fair representation; you do not have proper apportionment.

I will make this clear... (using extreme example)

Hypothetical situation 1:  There is 1 representative for every 1 thousand people.
Hypothetical situation 2:  There is 1 representative for every 1 trillion people.

As you can see, in situation (1), you have fair representation. (Democracy!)
But in situation (2), you do not have fair representation. (Dictator!!!)

(Notice that the only difference between "democracy" and "dictator" is the number of people being represented.)

In situation (1), a person cannot be elected to the House unless he actually lives in your neighborhood, operates a business nearby, attends your church, etc. No amount of TV commercials can change this. No outsider could ever win. Certainly no one would be in office for very long, unless he was available to meet with constituents, who would all actually meet with him and voice their concerns on a regular basis.

In situation (2), on the other hand, a person cannot be elected to the House unless he gets lots and lots of money from big corporations, and spends it on lots and lots of TV commercials. No "real person" could ever win. Certainly no one would be in office for very long, unless he was entirely bought-and-paid-for by large corporations, who would all actually meet with him and voice their concerns on a regular basis.

When the Constitution was written, the House had 1 representative for every 30,000 people.

Today, Congress is very different. There are 435 people ruling over FOUR HUNDRED MILLION. This is no different than 1 person reigning over 1 million. (In the old days they called that a "king.")

You see, "everybody has one vote" is a lie they sell you. What's actually important is how diluted that vote is.

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

Consider also the SENATE. In the old days, each Senator was appointed by his respective state legislature. He had a strong incentive to represent the interests of that state legislature, for otherwise, they would remove him from office. This meant that the Senators were beholden to the States, just as the House was beholden to the People. (The Senators actually represented the States, in those days.) Therefore, a Senator actually had to deal with 50 or 100 actual state legislators and their concerns, or he was fired.

But today, things are very different. The Senator is elected by direct election of the people. For example in California, there are THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE but only 2 Senators. But those Senators do not represent those people, since it is physically impossible for anyone to represent thirty million people. Instead, those Senators represent the large corporations who pay for TV commercials that get them elected. As for the voters, the Senators really only care about a certain vague notion of whether the voters are "angry", and this they only care about once every 6 years. They certainly do not represent those voters, nor do they represent the interests of their State government (which has no say in their election.)

So you see, the States WERE represented in the Senate, but no longer. And the People WERE represented in the House, but no longer. Those times have passed / are passing.

This is not a problem of corporations, which are a simple fact of natural law. Rather, this is a problem of an uneducated populace being unwilling or unable to demand their right to fair representation. Once you fix that, then suddenly all problems of "corporations" or "campaign finance" or "district gerrymandering" are revealed as false issues, and disappear. Those issues are actually used as a red herring in order to distract the population and keep them occupied in the two-party system. Don't fall for it.

Also, see:   www.apportionment.us

Corporations can only become an illicit power center (as well as a bogeyman) in cases where your vote has been diluted away. The same is true of unions, and even government agencies. This is why you move through life with that vague feeling of pressure to either become part of the investor class and under SEC and FDIC regulation, or the corporate class regulated by your manager who is regulated by the FTC, or to join a union, regulated by the Department of Labor, or work for a government agency, or to end up in the prison system or living off of the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. You certainly don't feel as if the system is pushing you towards "running your own ship", now do you?

All of the problems that conservatives normally associate with unions are not a result of the unions themselves (i.e. the workers' natural rights of association and collective bargaining.) Rather, they are problems caused by state and federal laws which favor unions at the expense of our rights.

Similarly, the problems that liberals associate with corporations are not a result of the corporations themselves (i.e. the investors' and employees' natural rights of association, property, voluntary exchange and the right to contract.) Rather, they are problems caused by state and federal laws which favor corporations at the expense of our rights.

It's always the same: Unfair advantages (granted via government force) to the corporations/unions/banks/whatever, bundled with increased government power to regulate those same corporations/banks/unions/etc--always at the expense of individuals and small businesses--with the ill-gotten gains being distributed disproportionately to those who are well-connected. Growing more and more towards fascism on the right, and socialism on the left.

The cause is also always the same: lack of fair representation stemming from ignorance about our rights under Magna Carta, under the Enlightenment, under Natural Law, under the Declaration of Independence, and the Judeo-Christian ethic. This same ignorance also destroys our right to a fair jury trial via juries who judge the law itself (and not merely the facts of the case.) For if jurors are ignorant of this right, it becomes of no effect.

Let's assume a couple of users:  Alice, Bob, Carla, and Deborah

If Alice transfers 10 clams to Bob,  and Bob transfers 5 clams to Carla, and Carla transfers 1 clam to Deborah, the server sees:

Alice->Transfer 10 clams to Bob.
Bob->Transfer 5 clams to Carla.
Carla->Transfer 1 clam to Deborah.

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

BUT IF THEY USE CASH, then the server would see this instead:

Bob->Has just verified 10 clams in cash (source unknown.)
Carla->Has just verified 5 clams in cash (source unknown.)
Deborah->Has just verified 1 clam in cash (source unknown.)


Of course "Bob" and "Carla" are really just public keys, as far as the server is concerned.

As you can see, the server can NOT trace the path of any money from Alice to Bob to Carla, etc. The server can only see when someone has received cash, but the server has no idea where that cash came from (because it's untraceable.)

The problem isn't when individuals or corporations are free to do whatever they want.

The problem is when the government gives them special privileges at the expense of others' rights.

1. I'm sure there are mining groups now who would accept certain more exotic transaction types.

2. Even if multi-sign isn't accepted yet, I still need to get started on my code, so I still need to see a code sample using your library (preferably.) It will be months before this stuff is fully ready,  IMO.

3. Once low-trust servers are popping up to take advantage of such code, I can almost guarantee you there will be a sea change in the Bitcoin community as various miners, exchanges, et al jump on board.

Need sample code!


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

 

Can you please post a code sample of how to perform multi-sign transactions on the blockchain using your library.

This is a necessary piece for me.

FYI Markm is already running a test server, though it's down today until I get a certain bug fixed. Should be back up tomorrow or the next day.
Search this forum for markm, open transactions alpha server, and you will find all the relevant info.

The easiest way to play with OT is to just download it, since the default configuration includes sample data for a "localhost" server.
You just run the server yourself on your local machine, then run the GUI on the same machine, in order to play with the functionality.
(That's what you see me doing on the OT videos.)

I wouldn't characterize OT (the library itself) as needing marketing, since it is already well-known and short on demos.
More likely, once more user-friendly applications are available, then those will need the marketing.
(The first real users of OT will encounter it not directly, but through software built with it. That's where I think marketing will come in.)

-FT

FYI, "the OT community" can only be a reference to me, since I have slaved away on it, alone, for the past year-and-a-half. (Seeking volunteer coders.)

We're in the process now of testing our way through the first alpha server.  Discussion is at irc.freenode.net #opentransactions

My own focus has been on developing the library itself, and supporting anyone who uses it (not so much on building sites that use it or creating demos, which is your job, not mine.) In the end there will only be two types of people: those using OT, and those re-inventing the wheel, coding new systems that do the same things. There is no escaping this. (And either end is fine with me  :-)

-FT

eCache I am pretty sure is the legitimate thing: (Chaumian untraceable cash, backed in gold.) They also have some kind of bonding mechanism, to secure the gold.

As for Ukash, I checked out their website and I am not so sure. Seems like they have "vouchers" issued by their server. But I see nothing about those vouchers being untraceable. Furthermore, an OT server is unable to change your balance without your permission (you must sign first, and the server cannot forge your signature.) But I don't see that Ukash has any similar technology. Absent claims / proof to the contrary, I'd have to assume that they have the power to change my balance anytime they want, with or without my agreement, the same as PayPal or MtGox could.

-FT

I recommend L-AGPL over LGPL.

It's basically the same as LGPL, except it applies even in cases where the software is used "as a service" (instead of as an installable program.)

See above for more info.

I am not too familiar with those systems, though I'd assume they are similar to running OT in cash-only mode, since they probably offer real Chaumian blinding.

I had heard of eCache, but not uKash. (URL?) There was also blindbitcoin.com. OT should make it easier for people to offer such services.

FYI, the connect info for any server is stored INSIDE the server contract.

If you want to connect to a specific server, go to the 'contracts' tab, and import the server contract.

From there, if you open any accounts, or perform any transactions with that server, OT will be smart enough to read the connect info out of its contract.

OT's latest version (with smart contracts) comes with a sample script that does a two-way trade between Alice and Bob. Arbitrated escrow isn't much more -- I'll work up a script tonight and check it into github. (This was on my list for today already, in fact.)  Here's what I'm thinking:

The existing sample script takes X units of currency A from Alice and Y units of currency B from Bob. If both are successful, then it gives Alice's money to Bob, and gives Bob's money to Alice. (They are atomic, success or failure.)

The new contract will introduce a third party: the arbitrator. This will be a real escrow contract, which assumes there is some offline sale happening (ex. You are sending a guitar to someone in another state...) The contract must include the precondition and the postcondition. After the parties have signed the contract and activated it, X funds from Alice will be stashed inside the contract for 30 days, and then automatically transferred to Bob. If, during that 30 day period, Alice decides that Bob has not shipped her the guitar, she can trigger the dispute clause, which sends notices to Bob and the Arbitrator. She must send her evidence when she does this. After this, the funds will remain stashed in the contract for another 7 days, awaiting a Decision from the Arbitrator. If the arbitrator does not respond in X days, then the money goes back to Alice automatically. Otherwise the arbitrator may trigger a clause deciding the matter one way or the other. Some arbitration fee will be listed in the contract, along with any additional fee should Dispute() be triggered. There will also be clauses allowing the arbitrator to query Bob and Alice for additional information. Calling these will add a day or two to the 7 day timeout period.

You will be able to test the contract on your own machine, or use the OT test server to play around with it. If you have any thoughts on the above, please let me know so I can work them into the script.

-FT

OpenSSL doesn't necessarily conflict with the GPL!  All you have to do is, provide a waiver with your license, allowing your users to link OpenSSL while using your library.

See the OT headers for examples of this, regarding OpenSSL as well as the Lucre library:  https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/blob/master/LICENSE-AND-CREDITS.txt

Wget, for example, uses this "waiver" trick, and other software. Google for more info.
YOU can provide additional permissions on top of the AGPL (which is exactly how the LAGPL itself works.)
Since you can add permissions (NEVER restrictions) to any GPL license, then you may also be able to fix your AGPL "bug" using that technique.


GPL licenses make exemptions for other GPL licenses, for interoperability reasons. So LGPL is different than BSD in terms of this interoperability. (For example, the above-described waiver is not necessary with LGPL...)

FYI, here is my own "easy english" description of the L-AGPL's operation:

Whether you are distributing binaries that link to the OT-API, or whether you are using the OT-API in your website — so-called “software as a service” — either way, your own code may remain private, but any improvements to the OT library or API code itself must be made available open-source.

My understanding is that the BSD license does not do this -- IBM could take all the libbitcoin code tomorrow if it were under BSD license, and use it internally, without having to open any source code, and without having to deal with the developers of libbitcoin. They could then sell it as closed-source, at a profit, and cut out the original developers, and cut out the open source community. They would not have to make available any of their improvements to libbitcoin, but could keep these proprietary. IMO that is a big distinction between BSD and LGPL.

I'm not opposed to the BSD license, but the link I provided in the previous post demonstrates why the GPL license can be important when it comes to maintaining a thriving open-source community around a given piece of software. Especially convincing is the amount of money spent by (normally competing) corporations such as Microsoft, et al towards improving linux, where such entities would normally never invest funds to benefit their competitors, but instead would tend to choose a proprietary solution (or co-opt a piece of BSD-licensed code in order to create a proprietary solution, as described in that article.)

Congratulations on the excellent library work.

I also notice you have chosen the GNU Affero GPL for your license. (The 'AGPL'.)

I still use AGPL, but only for my server software. My OT library now uses the L-AGPL, which preserves the Affero SaaS protections, while allowing LGPL-like permissions in places where OT is used as a library. It's the best of both worlds!

You can read more about the LAGPL here: http://mo.morsi.org/blog/node/270

I think this is the best argument in favor of using the GPL for (certain) open-source projects: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd

Also, FYI I actually wrote to the FSF about this, and they directed me to the same LAGPL article.

The critical point, legally, is that the LAGPL is created by layering additional permissions on top of the AGPL.

(Versus adding restrictions to the LGPL, which would be removable downstream.)

In the case of the LAGPL, the additional permissions are also removable, but who is ever going to do THAT? Therefore, that is the proper structure for it.

Here's a simple version:

Imagine that I generate a random ID:  "lkjsdf987234"

Next I blind it, using the server's $10 public key:  "876345kjhkjh"

(Next I send it to the server, along with a $10 withdrawal request.)

The server pulls $10 from my account, and then the server
signs the prototoken using its $10 private key:   "876345kjhkjh SIGNED:Server"

(Sends it back to me...)

I then UNBLIND IT using the Server's $10 public key:  "lkjsdf987234 SIGNED:Server"


AT THIS POINT, the token is ready to spend.  As you can see, I have a valid server signature, which can only be verified using the server's $10 key, and which contains an ID that the server DOES NOT KNOW.

That is why it's called a "blind signature" -- because the server signs it "blind".

The server still feels safe that only the $10 key will verify the signature. So while the server has no idea where the cash came from, when it is redeemed, it nevertheless knows whether or not it is any good.
This is also provable to a third party, since the spent token database can be made public, and only the server's $10 public key is necessary to verify the tokens.

Imagine that you withdrew $100 from the bank.
Now imagine you give it to your favorite prostitute, and she gives it to her pimp, and he gives it to his coke dealer, who gives it to a coyote, who spends it at 7/11.
Now:  The bank can see that you WITHDREW $100, and the bank can see that 7/11 DEPOSITED $100... but the bank can't see any of the people who had it in-between.
Furthermore, the bank doesn't know if it's the SAME $100. It simply has no way of connecting the withdrawal to the deposit, since the cash is untraceable.

If you have several pseudonyms (public keys) registered at an OT server, and they are transacting in cash, the server can see their withdrawals and deposits, but it cannot see who is giving you that money, and it cannot see where you are spending it. Such is untraceable. A server doesn't even know whether you have a hoard of coins which you are exchanging one-at-a-time, or whether you actually have only a single coin, which you are exchanging over and over again. A server can't tell the difference.
Furthermore, while the server can link a specific Nym's withdrawals to each other (by way of that Nym), it cannot link them to how they are spent, or to any of the activities of your other Nyms. Furthermore, if the server is run in cash-only mode, so that there is only a single Nym which performs only cash-token exchanges, then you lose even pseudonymity, and the system becomes completely anonymous.

How is it possible to return the cash notes anonymously to the user?  ANSWER: Over an anonymous network.

How is it possible that the note itself cannot be traced as it is spent?  ANSWER:  Using blind signatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Signatures

It works like this:  The client generates the prototokens and blinds them using the server's public mint keys. These prototokens are sent to the server along with the withdrawal request.  The server signs the prototokens using its private mint keys.  For example, if I am withdrawing $100, then the $100 public mint key will be used on the client side to blind the prototoken, and the $100 private mint key will be used on the server sign to blind-sign the prototoken, and then when the client receives the server reply, the client will use the $100 public mint key to UNBLIND the prototoken, and it is now ready for spending.

(This information is already available on my FAQ...)

Once the client has unblinded the prototoken, then it will have a valid server signature on its ID, even though the server doesn't know what that ID is, since it was blinded when it was signed.

The server is, nevertheless confident that if $100 was withdrawn from your account, that it used the $100 mint key to sign the request -- therefore, even though the server doesn't what what the ID is, it still knows that it was signed with the $100 key, and that only the $100 key will successfully verify it in the future.  When it IS verified, the server will know it was good, but it will not know where it originally came from, since this is untraceable.



The answer is that digital cash uses denominations, just like real cash.  In a certain mint file there might be, say, a 1c key, a 5c key, 10c key, 25c key, 50c key, $1 key, $5 key, $10 key, $20 key, and $100 key.

For an example of this, see the sample public mint file posted on the OT wiki:  
https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki/Sample-Mint

Thus, if you give cash to someone in a specific amount, you will not be giving him a token, but rather, a purse full of them, in the appropriate denominations to amount to your $12.63 or $0.84 etc.


Banks are bureaucracies responsible primarily for regulatory compliance and enforcement (related to their monopoly on the issuance of money.)

Their actions do not stem from natural market forces, but from the regulations related to the FDIC, money laundering and tax law, SEC compliance, and so on.

In answer to your question, Why do banks stick to "know everything about every transaction"...? the answer is so they can watch for suspicious activities on your part, report on them to the authorities, and freeze your funds when asked to by the tax enforcement department in your jurisdiction.

Similarly, if you were to ask me why food is so superior to tree bark, since many in the North Korean economy continue to eat tree bark (even though they have known about food for at least several decades), my answer would be that North Koreans eat tree bark not because of natural market forces, but rather, due to the unavailability of good food as a result of government interference in the free market.

That's because you are not educated on this subject:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Signatures

In fact, untraceable digital cash really is untraceable.

Well maybe you are trolling me, but I'll go ahead and say it again:

You people, here in this thread, were talking about Open-Transactions first, before I got here.  (That's why I came to this thread, to respond.)

That's why I said "Scroll up" -- so you would realize that people on this thread were already talking about it before I arrived.

I only showed up later -- to respond to what you guys were saying, and clear up any misconceptions.

(Which I still feel as if I am doing...)

FYI, I only posted here to correct misconceptions, in reply to existing discussion in this thread re: Open-Transactions.

(Scroll up. See?)

"You shall not lend upon usury to thy brother;
usury of money, usury of victuals,
usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Unto a stranger you may lend upon usury;
but unto your brother you shall not lend upon usury:
that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you set your hand to
in the land whither you go to possess it."
Deut 23:19-20

"You shall not have different weights in your bag, a great and a small.
You shall not have different measures in your house, a great and a small.
But you shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure
you shall have: That your days may be lengthened in the land which the
LORD your God gives you."
Deuteronomy 25:13

"You shall not steal."
Exodus 20:15

"Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike
abomination to the LORD."
Proverbs 20:10

He overturned the tables of the money-lenders,
and the benches of those selling doves.
"It is written," he said to them,
"'My house will be called a house of prayer,' (1)
but you are making it a 'den of thieves' (2)."
Matthew 21:12b-13, 1. Isaiah 56:7, 2. Jeremiah 7:11

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."
Proverbs 22:7

"Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the courts."
Amos 5:15

"Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and
inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
Deuteronomy 16:20

"Do not pervert justice;
do not show partiality to the poor
or favoritism to the strong,
but judge your neighbor fairly."
Leviticus 19:15

"You shall not go after the majority to do evil.
Neither shall you testify in a matter of strife
to incline after the majority to pervert justice."
Exodus 23:2