People who say they aren't fans of private property are usually people who don't own much.

Is it not the same for bitcoin? One person will eventually win the lottery by finding a winning block. His view of the network is accepted as "the" view. Although in reality it is actually just a few pools that can make that determination and can easily collude. Perhaps pools give you warm fuzzies, but they are far less decentralized than the system I propose.


Absolutely, unequivocally, not. I specifically noted how the random order would be determined to help you understand this. The Consensus Block only exists if it is agreed on by all SHs. The reason why I designed the consensus period to be so long is so that a) SHs do not have to constantly monitor the network (they only need to be online around the time in which they have to create a TB), and b)


to give an ample window of time to organize the Transaction Block chain so that whoever is going to provide a TB or CB signature (if they missed their TB or had their TB dropped by the CN or other SHs) has the opportunity to do so. I did not cover the Transaction Block chain in the OP because it starts getting into the very technical details of network security, which I have already promised Ukigo that I will detail soon.

There are only two reasons why consensus of the network can not be reached:

1) EvilCorp. owns a significant amount of shares and is trying to make it look like TheGoodGuys are not attempting to reach consensus. This is thwarted by the larger and more diverse CN, as well as CNCs and SPs, watching network activity. They will refuse to acknowledge newer blocks that have not acknowledged previous blocks. This is not a hard and fast rule, it is determined by the will of the entire network. The longer you wait to acknowledge a TB that has propagated, the more likely your TB will fail. The only way to get around this is to also control the vast majority of the CN, and really, a large portion of the CNCs/SPs as well. At this point you are just playing with yourself. Don't forget that this will also require a not insignificant percentage of all the coins in existence.
2) Internet infrastructure goes down/governments block outside access/specifically target decrits. These are all solved by meshnet technology. While it's easy to say "it will be solved in the future", this is not a problem the network can fix, though of course it will have ways to recover from minor and even major splits, but only if they are reasonably temporary*. And even for an extended period people locked out of the network only need to get through a few dozen bytes to maintain consensus.

edit: * - Reasonable is a fairly long time, on the order of 10-30 CDs depending on how it finally ends up working out and how strong of a possibility this really seems (not that likely, but China for example could be a problem with its history).

No, don't "play along." Tell me what you actually think. I'm tired of running around in circles with you because you won't nail down an actual position. If you do not own your life, who does?

You said "property is not well defined" Well, there is property, very well defined.

I do indeed. I assume you have a point here.

Well, if you don't own yourself, who does?

For reference:
prop·er·ty 
/ˈpräpərtē/
Noun

    A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.

Who owns your life, then?

Then you support only legal rights, and deny natural rights?

Have you ever earned an honest Krone in your life?

SHs are assigned in random orders* to produce Transaction Blocks that cover specific 10 second periods in each CB. The transaction that wins will be based on which SH is the next to create a TB after the transactions have propagated. This is the basis for 5-15 second confirmations.

* - The "random" order is changed by the hash of the 100% SH signature consensus (or less than 100% with unsigning SHs losing their deposit--section 1.B.ii) of the prior CB.

Danish law grants you the privilege of leeching off the productivity of others. Rights are not granted by laws. They cannot be taken away by laws. If that law were to change, you would lose the ability to benefit from other's work. Since you cannot lose a right, that is by definition not a right, but, in fact, a violation of other's right to their own productivity. Asking someone else to mug someone is no better than mugging them yourself.

Then live off your real mother, or seek private charity, and take your support voluntarily, rather than by force.

You're right, you're not begging. you're demanding. You have no right to the productivity of others without their consent.

You might even *gasp* have to work! (Oh noes!)

There isn't a concept of "double spending" in Decrits because coins are not tracked individually, they are tracked by account balances (instead the concept is "bad spends"--spends that would take your account below zero, or in a SH's case, below 3,000). Every blinded transaction has an equal opportunity to any of the coins in the SH's account until it goes below the share size. Knowing S does not unrepudiate the transaction. The Decrits network will not just ignore this like Bitcoin does. There is no retribution for acknowledging it in Bitcoin though so it is not *completely* necessary (though the current implementation is rather bone-headed from a merchant's standpoint), whereas in Decrits the offending SH will be penalized.

New Hampshire legislators are only paid a salary of $100 per year, helping ensure the existence of a citizen legislature committed to public service, unlike every other state.

AU sends B(S) to the network where every other SH will see it as a valid transaction and add it to his TB.

Take all your tax money, set it aside. With that money, select the services you would like.

Healthcare? Private insurance is much cheaper than government-funded.

Roads? Pay only for those you actually use.

Military? A defensive force is much cheaper than one on the attack (This, likely, wouldn't change much in Denmark but what a change it would be here in the US!).

Welfare? Private charities are orders of magnitude more efficient than government welfare.

Now, with what's left over, buy better housing, a better car, better food, and tell me your life isn't better off.

There is no plausible deniability to a non-repudiated digital signature, blind or otherwise. That is a basic tenet of digital signatures. A transaction arriving that brings the SH's account below 3,000 DCR is proof that the SH has stolen or is attempting to steal money. The SH could sign the 2,500 DCR worth of transactions, cash them all out immediately, and when any of the legitimate unblinded txes come in, the fraud will be revealed with proof for all to see, and the SH will lose the 3,000 deposit.

I was shocked when I read that article.  How do you guys sustain that crazy situation?  How do you afford it?  And how are you going to make it last?  Creating a society of dependent people might look OK for awhile, but it's really unhealthy.  

Funny how abused children almost always say that. "Mommy hits me because she loves me!"

I take this to mean that you would refuse to operate within the constraints of such a society, and not subscribe to a protection service or arbitration firm, and as such, be an outlaw. Well, if you don't play the game right, don't be surprised when you lose.

Yes, Let's look at Somalia. (Even though that's more of a anarcho-socialist arrangement.)
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good.

Denmark, huh.  No wonder you guys love the state.

Danes Rethink a Welfare State
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


But I wouldn't get too comfortable, if I were you...

Yup, personal responsibility is a bitch, it's nice to have mommy Government to fall back on, huh? Too bad she's such an abusive parent.

Did you read the post I linked right after that sentence?

"Actually, I thought about it a bit more, and specifically under the Decrits system this would be possible because of the shareholder system.

Users blind their transactions and shareholders add them to a blind sig queue. Once there are enough in the queue (decided by the protocol, say 50 or so txes), a shareholder will sign all of them and have the coins deposited to his shareholder stake.[..] You have the slight chance of getting boned if the shareholder removes his share,"

While this is true, there is a non-gameable way to ensure this is a waste of time and money. The penalty for seeing more withdrawals than allowed (when the blind signees come to get their money) is bigger than the gain made by stealing money. For example, if a SH has a 3,000 DCR deposit, he will only be allowed to blind sign 2,500 DCR which will be added to his stake. If a transaction places his stake below 3,000 DCR, he will lose 3,000 DCR for a net of -500 and all reputation associated with his SH (3 years potentially down the drain). An "early withdrawal" penalty would be say 250 DCR, so it is also not a profitable avenue over just taking that penalty.

what's the best freeware