.

[bluemeanie1]

I might point out also that if someone were to give us something very much like Ripple, that did the same things as Ripple, but licensed it as BSD/Apache, then it would be preferable to Ripple.

An interesting site about Ripple:  http://ripplescam.org

Seems we have a number of 'Top Secret Open Source Projects' in this space at moment.  Im really surprised how easy people buy this stuff.  There are currently TWO groups with open source(or claims to such) who have founded companies around the project BEFORE they have any users.  The whole space is really quite distorted, so we can expect distorted outcomes.

[bluemeanie1]

this doesn't have 'gateways', that's Ripple you're talking about.  It's not easy to shut down the authorities.  They can be run from a cell phone or any other kind of unreliable connection(even email is possible).  It doesn't require that anyone run a server, so you could authorize transactions from anywhere, even a mobile device.  Secondly you must shut down ALL the authorities- and there could be hundreds all in different countries with different connections.  It's quite resilient.

The fact is if you want some kind of asset with backing, there must be some kind of authority somewhere, because ultimately you need to be able to redeem those assets somehow.  This system offers the MOST flexibility for designing that authority.

Then it looks like I didn't understand your paper.

What is the difference between a ripple gateway (such as bitstamp) and your "authority"? This post seems to imply that one asset might have multiple authorities... which would be cool, but how would be that possible in practice? i.e. every single authority should be able to redeem your "coins" with the backed valuables...

First off, anyone can implement this concept.  Im not attempting to profit from this, at least directly.  I am interested in building p2p financial products.  I would like to USE this technology and I am looking for others who want to use this, then we can build a community of people who want this functionality.  I think that ANYONE should be able to build and market financial products and liquidity should be available to ANYONE.  Don't you agree?   

The authorities are simply some kind of entity who has identified themselves in some way.  It could simply be through the use of a key pair.  It could be some bank sanctioned by the government of Costa Rica who advertises on their website that they are an authority in this chain.  It could be the NY branch of the Federal Reserve.  These authorities, once defined, have the ability to approve the block chain.  The algorithm allows for something interesting- a kind of VOTING mechanism on what goes into the chain.  Now if you are familiar with Bitcoin, this applies to the problems of, eg. double spends.  If one authority thinks a transaction is valid, but the others dont and they overpower that authorities WEIGHT, then it doesnt get put into the chain.  This, in of itself, is quite useful because we've factored out Proof Of Work, thus we have no latency- while maintaining the integrity aspect of Bitcoin.  The only drawback is you must define these authorities in the first place.

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

[Lohoris]

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

I still miss the point.

You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU.

Which is exactly like Ripple.

If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear.

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad.
But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so...

[BCB]

highly recommend this webinar today and tomorrow to anyone serious about US virtual currency regulation.

http://www.comptegrity.com/

[bluemeanie1]

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

I still miss the point.

You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU.

Which is exactly like Ripple.

  Basically, every money system BUT Bitcoin has this notion of IOUs.  This includes the US dollar, that at one point was an IOU for gold, but now is a more complex debt instrument.  This is a common response to my statements for people who are only familiar with Bitcoin and Ripple.  Ripple did not invent the concept of a digital IOU.  It's the things that exist apart from IOUs that are what makes Ripple what it is.  How this part works is really quite mysterious, certainly not open source, the result of capital investment, and other things that make it questionable.  There are claims about Ripple, and characteristics of this digital asset XRPs which to me don't appear to add up.  With Confidence Chains, no carrier currency is required- and code I write will certainly be open source FROM THE START.  I think that alone makes it more attractive than Ripple.  I think the question of Ripple's success will be in the sheer numbers of people who simply want basic usability features(transfers, etc.) over principle and long term qualities.  There is no doubt that Ripple will appeal to many users who are not involved seriously in digital currencies.  It will be easy to use, provide some security of transfer and possibly exchange, but as of now doesn't offer the open source or even p2p/decentralization that bitcoin does.  For instance there was a user named geekmom who was recently complaining on here about how sketchy bitcoin was(she was 'out of here').  Ripple will no doubt capture users like her, but you have to ask- is Ripple really revolutionary though?  are we back to where we started?

  Bitcoin is unique in that there is demand for it, but there is no real world backing.  Some believe this is a temporary state of affairs, others believe that Bitcoin is a new kind of currency and PoW is analogous to Gold.  I leave that up to time to determine, suffices to say though that IOUs are required to preform this function of exchanging.  Other platforms have also arrived this inevitable conclusion, thus it has this in common with Ripple- but to say it's 'just like Ripple' is totally inaccurate.

If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear.

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad.
But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so...

TRUE.  At this point it's an idea- and it's not *my* system per se, it's just a proposal and if anyone has any legitimate arguments against this proposal, let's hear them.  If we don't hear any, one can assume this system is valid- thus software built using the idea is also valid.  Unfortunately, due to my various encounters on here I need to re-establish these basic laws of collaboration and engineering because some projects on here did not go through this process.  Im not an amateur developer and I do things right.

Ripple might deliver something attractive to the community, I'm sure they will deliver something.  They are in business after all.  The question is as to WHAT they are delivering.

Ripple might have been able to hire every expert in the field, but keep in mind- those experts cost money.  So no matter how much resources they have to spend on brainpower- they will inevitably come up with something designed to offer them a return on that investment.  Bitcoin emerged in a much different way, from the world of open source.  There have been *many* commercially produced digital currencies before and they all failed.  So Ripple isn't Bitcoin 2.0, it's a commercial software no matter what kind of licensing they offer.  Do you believe the investors behind OpenCoin are doing charity?  If the software itself is free, then the system would be designed in order to get a return on these XRP credits.  But a PR budget goes a long way, especially in the scenario where there is a lot of uneducated interest in a field of activity- which is what is going on with Bitcoin today.

[geekmom]

yeah, i'm still waiting for my $100 too.

There are other interesting advantages.  In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers.  How do we decide who gets to bid on trades?  What if we wanted an auction?  who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING?  This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities.  If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order.  In my system we make this negotiation explicit.

this order can be defined in many ways.  For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public.  You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased.  You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities.  You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology).

I still miss the point.

You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU.

Which is exactly like Ripple.

  Basically, every money system BUT Bitcoin has this notion of IOUs.  This includes the US dollar, that at one point was an IOU for gold, but now is a more complex debt instrument.  This is a common response to my statements for people who are only familiar with Bitcoin and Ripple.  Ripple did not invent the concept of a digital IOU.  It's the things that exist apart from IOUs that are what makes Ripple what it is.  How this part works is really quite mysterious, certainly not open source, the result of capital investment, and other things that make it questionable.  There are claims about Ripple, and characteristics of this digital asset XRPs which to me don't appear to add up.  With Confidence Chains, no carrier currency is required- and code I write will certainly be open source FROM THE START.  I think that alone makes it more attractive than Ripple.  I think the question of Ripple's success will be in the sheer numbers of people who simply want basic usability features(transfers, etc.) over principle and long term qualities.  There is no doubt that Ripple will appeal to many users who are not involved seriously in digital currencies.  It will be easy to use, provide some security of transfer and possibly exchange, but as of now doesn't offer the open source or even p2p/decentralization that bitcoin does.  For instance there was a user named geekmom who was recently complaining on here about how sketchy bitcoin was(she was 'out of here').  Ripple will no doubt capture users like her, but you have to ask- is Ripple really revolutionary though?  are we back to where we started?

  Bitcoin is unique in that there is demand for it, but there is no real world backing.  Some believe this is a temporary state of affairs, others believe that Bitcoin is a new kind of currency and PoW is analogous to Gold.  I leave that up to time to determine, suffices to say though that IOUs are required to preform this function of exchanging.  Other platforms have also arrived this inevitable conclusion, thus it has this in common with Ripple- but to say it's 'just like Ripple' is totally inaccurate.

If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear.

Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess.  They have no released their source code.  At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have.  Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers.  ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.

I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad.
But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so...

TRUE.  At this point it's an idea- and it's not *my* system per se, it's just a proposal and if anyone has any legitimate arguments against this proposal, let's hear them.  If we don't hear any, one can assume this system is valid- thus software built using the idea is also valid.  Unfortunately, due to my various encounters on here I need to re-establish these basic laws of collaboration and engineering because some projects on here did not go through this process.  Im not an amateur developer and I do things right.

Ripple might deliver something attractive to the community, I'm sure they will deliver something.  They are in business after all.  The question is as to WHAT they are delivering.

Ripple might have been able to hire every expert in the field, but keep in mind- those experts cost money.  So no matter how much resources they have to spend on brainpower- they will inevitably come up with something designed to offer them a return on that investment.  Bitcoin emerged in a much different way, from the world of open source.  There have been *many* commercially produced digital currencies before and they all failed.  So Ripple isn't Bitcoin 2.0, it's a commercial software no matter what kind of licensing they offer.  Do you believe the investors behind OpenCoin are doing charity?  If the software itself is free, then the system would be designed in order to get a return on these XRP credits.  But a PR budget goes a long way, especially in the scenario where there is a lot of uneducated interest in a field of activity- which is what is going on with Bitcoin today.

[gdpone]

Yes pick me too, I want to be part of the new world bitcoin order muahahahha!  Seriously though, if you cant beat em join em.

[LightRider]

Bitcoin IS self regulating. Math doesn't require oversight.

[justusranvier]

You guys are missing the point... This means COIN TAINT.

It is not "self regulation" it is a central Bitcoin Taint Organization that tracks which coins were used for illegal activities and puts them on a centrally-controlled taint list. Most large Bitcoin companies will participate.

Say Dude A sells some pot on Silk Road. He receives the BTC and sends them to a mixer and then to Dude B via IRC-OTC after selling them for a wire transfer or something. Dude B sends them to somebody else. Eventually they wind up at Bitcoin100 Charity where they are sent to "Starving Kids in Moojoombo Village, Congo Fund."

Representative of SKiMVC charity visits the kids and says "www.bitcoin100.org Bitcoin100 just donated $1,000 to us, so we have enough money to install a village well and you won't have to walk 5 miles a day for water anymore!" Yayy! Everyone cheering, people dancing!
Next day, representative visits again, this time with sad look on her face. "Sorry, Bitpay wouldn't pay us for the Bitcoins, they just returned them, saying the Bitcoin Taint Council tainted them. We looked into the possibility of selling them on the black market OTC to people who didn't mind the taint, for lower than spot value, but our attorney advised against it saying we could be subject to massive fines or loss of our NPO status. Sorry, no well."

Why were they tainted? By the time they had been sent to the charity, the council's blockchain explorer had tracked them and discovered they were (1) Used for Pot sale, which is illegal in some countries. (2) Sent through a mixer, all coins sent through mixers will be tainted. (3) Sold on IRC-OTC which violates AML/FINCEN regulations.

I can think of a thousand scenarios where we could be screwed, including for "crimes" which are not really crimes. The War on Drugs will be extended to Bitcoins. Just like paypal, anyone who does not align with the subjective morality of the Taint Council will have their "account" frozen via blacklist. ALL miners will have their coins tainted unless they are registered as a FINCEN "money transmitter" and pay taxes. There will be a whitelist for mined coins.

This isn't tinfoil hat worst-case scenario bullshit. This is what is actually being proposed by people high up in the Bitcoin World. Peter Vessenes warns that there will be no grandfathering of coins. So if any of your coins were used by PirateAt40 or a silk road pot-selling teenager in the past, they will be unspendable for 99% of merchants/receivers. This could be 1% of your stash or it could be 59%.

Oh, who wants to make a bet? The Supreme Coin Taint Council will have a buyback option where you sell your tainted coins to them for 50% of spot. Then, they untaint the coins and release them back in to circulation.

This is just what Paypal does. This is just what government regulatory agencies do. Most U.S. dollars have cocaine residue on them but I can still spend them just fine. Now we're trying to make BTC worse than the USD? Worrying about whether coins are tainted every time I receive them? What do you think this will do to the price of BTC if they can be randomly tainted with no prior notice?

Beware of any "self regulation" talk because I can guarantee you they are talking about COIN TAINT. And if large businesses/organizations in the Bitcoin world start operating from a centrally controlled Taint List, I will sell all of my coins into other cryptocurrencies as well as precious metals - you should too, because that would be the end of bitcoin.

Spot on, as we learned today.

[vokain]

couldn't we just purposely taint every coin? instead of coin laundry...coin tainting?

[BTCetera]

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

Fuck Washington, DC.
Fuck FinCEN.
Fuck Bitcoin Foundation.

So long as one is not subject to US jurisdiction, this sentiment is a matter of personal taste.  However, if one transacts with Americans and especially if one resides within the USA, this sentiment can lead to unfortunate consequences, unless one has closed all of one's bank and credit card accounts.

Obviously, Bitcoin per se is beyond direct regulation, and all the regulation talk is about the USD/Bitcoin interface.  However, until we can pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. directly with Bitcoin—and I do not mean using Bitcoin to buy Gyft cards, as wonderful a development as that is—we will not escape that interface, if we want to integrate Bitcoin into our financial lives.  One day, perhaps, but not today.

FinCEN, the Fed, the US Treasury, FATF, et al. are notoriously jealous of their legacy system, as profoundly broken as it is, and if we insist on using it, then we will be subject to their regulations and statutes.  I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing.

What do the individuals who bluster impotently on these discussion boards think that they are achieving?  Waggling one's little bottom at Sauron does not make the Forces of Darkness quake in fear.  It makes the community look like a pack of snot-nosed little punks.

Real revolutionaries embrace disruptive engineering, entrepreneurship, and entertainment.

Rather than fling boogers at men with guns, badges, drones, and warrantless wiretaps, we should be spending our efforts developing P2P exchange networks, real financial services (including car loans and mortgages), full-service retail outlets (for food, clothing, and other consumer goods), and large-scale outreach initiatives to get the masses on our side.

Until then, and as long as Mt. Gox 'suffers a DDOS attack' every time someone refreshes its website more than twice in a minute, bluster makes us look silly.

Thank you for bringing some level headed balance into the discussion, sir. I'm with you: change will be incremental. Bitcoin is not a revolution that will take to the streets and topple an entire (legacy) system. It's only an element of a more gradual/progressive/incremental revolution.