[white paper] Purely P2P Crypto-Currency With Finite Mini-Blockchain

[bitfreak!]

Initially I disliked the idea of Bitcoin's fixed supply but I think with a slight tweak it could be the best solution. We want to have something which will act as a solid currency, encouraging people to spend their wealth but without penalizing them for saving as seems to be the case with Freicoin. We also want to avoid the problem of deflation from lost coins (government seizers, death of hoarders without wills, lost keys and mistaken transfers). Bitfreak suggested somewhere that coins in unused accounts should be removed and remind after some lengthy period of time (something like 100 years) just to avoid long term deflation but I see doing this on a smaller time scale as being beneficial in other ways.

The problem is, can you achieve a currency which encourages people to spend their money with a mechanism other than debasement or something similar to it? I can agree with the basic idea that debasement is potentially desirable if it's used to keep the value of the currency stable, but I cannot agree if it's used to steal value from the currency over time. But the fundamental problem is designing the debasement mechanism in such a way that is keeps the value of the currency stable. First of all what are we measuring the "value" of the coin against, what is its value relative to, and how can we ensure that the thing it is pegged to is also stable. There simply is no way in my mind for how that can be achieved in a satisfactory manner, the only logical solution imo is a floating coin with a value determined by the free market and a stable currency supply which doesn't increase or decrease perpetually (which can be achieved by re-mining lost coins).

I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.

One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.

[1714994076]

1714994076

[1714994076]

1714994076

[1714994076]

1714994076

[bitfreak!]

I need to read the pdf a couple of times...

Read the project wiki, the white-paper is quite out-dated now.

[AnonyMint]

The problem is, can you achieve a currency which encourages people to spend their money with a mechanism other than debasement or something similar to it?

People can't even be encouraged to spend with debasement. Either the value is rising, or a rational person will convert the currency for an asset that is rising in value.

You are conflating currency with asset AGAIN. I pointed that out to you upthread.

Bitcoin as an asset is rising in value, even while its debasement is a horrific 11% currently. Debasement neither causes the price to fall, nor does it correlate with the value of an asset.

You confuse things which are not directly proportional mathematically, because you forget the Quantity Theory of Money equation:

M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP

P (price) of goods and services doesn't necessarily increase (i.e. drop in value of the currency) in the above equation when M (money supply) increases, because the production Q can increase and/or the V (velocity) can decrease. In addition to those variables for a currency, for an asset such as Bitcoin, the demand can also be increasing faster than M.

I can agree with the basic idea that debasement is potentially desirable if it's used to keep the value of the currency stable,

What you agree to is irrelevant. It is what the community wants that is relevant, and polls I ran showed clearly the community understands debasement is desirable.

Stability is nonsense, as the price is set by the market.

The purpose of perpetual debasement is to fund mining. Funding mining from tx fees will lead to cartelization of Bitcoin (because the cartels such Amazon.com can siphon all txs to themselves by offering 0 tx fees or tx fee refunds) as I explained upthread, which means you will completely lose control of the debasement and be right back to an elite controlled money supply (which is precisely where Bitcoin is headed 2033 and I even believe it was designed that way by the NSA, and Satoshi was not one person).

The other purpose of perpetual debasement is that as I explained mathematically upthread, society will ALWAYS require it via their use of debt. And thus if you don't have it, society will replace your coin (via wars if necessary).

A tertiary purpose of debasement is that mining is the only way to get virgin coins, which are not tainted by previous illegal activities on the existing coins in the public ledger.  

http://www.nestmann.com/civil-forfeiture-of-cash-it-could-happen-to-you

Proving that your cash is connected to a crime is surprisingly easy to demonstrate. That's because 97% or more of cash circulating today contains tiny concentrations of narcotics residues—primarily cocaine. All police need to do is to bring in a drug-sniffing dog to inspect the cash.  If the dog alerts, police seize the cash. And, under civil forfeiture rules, it's up to you to prove that the cash has a legitimate origin.

Consider the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. During a traffic stop, Nebraska state troopers asked Gonzolez for permission to search his vehicle. During the search, the troopers found bundles of currency totaling $124,700. Based on a dog sniff, police seized all the money.

Gonzolez contested the forfeiture in court. Prosecutors neither convicted nor accused Gomez or any of the other owners of the seized cash of any crime. Nor did police find any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records connected to the cash. Despite these facts, a federal appeals court upheld the confiscation of every dollar found in the vehicle.

In thousands of cases across the United States each year, police follow the same pattern. In a search of someone's home or vehicle, they discover a significant quantity of cash. They then bring in a dog to sniff the cash for the presence of drug residues. The dog alerts virtually 100% of the time. This supposedly gives police probable cause to seize the cash under state or federal civil forfeiture laws.

Owners of property subject to civil forfeiture find themselves in an Alice-in-Wonderland legal landscape where the property seized is accused of a crime, rather than the owner. The owners must follow obscure rules that originate in Admiralty law, with which most attorneys aren't familiar. Under these rules, the seized property is presumed guilty, and it's up to its owner to demonstrate that the property is innocent. (Yes, it's bizarre, but it's the law!)

but I cannot agree if it's used to steal value from the currency over time.

Sorry but I will tell you frankly, this demonstrates low IQ thought process. Your IQ must not be above 120 (or you are not trying to think).

A small 3 - 5% (similar to the natural rate for gold) debasement doesn't steal.

1. It funds the damn coin mining, so your coins are not destroyed by a cartel.

2. How can it steal when the debasement doesn't drive the price? A healthy coin gets more demand and thus a higher price.

That stupid, hard-headed, goldbug nonsense has to go!

But the fundamental problem is designing the debasement mechanism in such a way that is keeps the value of the currency stable. First of all what are we measuring the "value" of the coin against, what is its value relative to, and how can we ensure that the thing it is pegged to is also stable. There simply is no way in my mind for how that can be achieved in a satisfactory manner, the only logical solution imo is a floating coin with a value determined by the free market and a stable currency supply which doesn't increase or decrease perpetually (which can be achieved by re-mining lost coins).

No shit Sherlock. What do you expect for raising such a stupid idea.

Stability is a non-existent thing in nature. Nature is relative and dynamic. I will once again suggest reading about what scientists know about what the Universe is made of (in short everything is relative, there is no invariant point of stability in the universe):

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

I am sorry, but I am so sick of dealing with low IQ nonsense when the person habitually repeats it without refuting the points that have been made already upthread showing that it is nonsense.

I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.

One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.

Agreed 1% is too high. There needs to be a tx fee, else (non-cartel) miners are not incentivized to include transactions in blocks. But 1% is ridiculous. 0.01% is probably enough.

A set tx fee would help to simplify wallet clients and be sure your transaction is accepted in the next block.

[digitalindustry]

The problem is, can you achieve a currency which encourages people to spend their money with a mechanism other than debasement or something similar to it?

People can't even be encouraged to spend with debasement. Either the value is rising, or a rational person will convert the currency for an asset that is rising in value.

You are conflating currency with asset AGAIN. I pointed that out to you upthread.

Bitcoin as an asset is rising in value, even while its debasement is a horrific 11% currently. Debasement neither causes the price to fall, nor does it correlate with the value of an asset.

You confuse things which are not directly proportional mathematically, because you forget the Quantity Theory of Money equation:

M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP

P (price) of goods and services doesn't necessarily increase (i.e. drop in value of the currency) in the above equation when M (money supply) increases, because the production Q can increase and/or the V (velocity) can decrease. In addition to those variables for a currency, for an asset such as Bitcoin, the demand can also be increasing faster than M.

I can agree with the basic idea that debasement is potentially desirable if it's used to keep the value of the currency stable,

What you agree to is irrelevant. It is what the community wants that is relevant, and polls I ran showed clearly the community understands debasement is desirable.

Stability is nonsense, as the price is set by the market.

The purpose of perpetual debasement is to fund mining. Funding mining from tx fees will lead to cartelization of Bitcoin (because the cartels such Amazon.com can siphon all txs to themselves by offering 0 tx fees or tx fee refunds) as I explained upthread, which means you will completely lose control of the debasement and be right back to an elite controlled money supply (which is precisely where Bitcoin is headed 2033 and I even believe it was designed that way by the NSA, and Satoshi was not one person).

The other purpose of perpetual debasement is that as I explained mathematically upthread, society will ALWAYS require it via their use of debt. And thus if you don't have it, society will replace your coin (via wars if necessary).

A tertiary purpose of debasement is that mining is the only way to get virgin coins, which are not tainted by previous illegal activities on the existing coins in the public ledger.  

http://www.nestmann.com/civil-forfeiture-of-cash-it-could-happen-to-you

Proving that your cash is connected to a crime is surprisingly easy to demonstrate. That's because 97% or more of cash circulating today contains tiny concentrations of narcotics residues—primarily cocaine. All police need to do is to bring in a drug-sniffing dog to inspect the cash.  If the dog alerts, police seize the cash. And, under civil forfeiture rules, it's up to you to prove that the cash has a legitimate origin.

Consider the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. During a traffic stop, Nebraska state troopers asked Gonzolez for permission to search his vehicle. During the search, the troopers found bundles of currency totaling $124,700. Based on a dog sniff, police seized all the money.

Gonzolez contested the forfeiture in court. Prosecutors neither convicted nor accused Gomez or any of the other owners of the seized cash of any crime. Nor did police find any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records connected to the cash. Despite these facts, a federal appeals court upheld the confiscation of every dollar found in the vehicle.

In thousands of cases across the United States each year, police follow the same pattern. In a search of someone's home or vehicle, they discover a significant quantity of cash. They then bring in a dog to sniff the cash for the presence of drug residues. The dog alerts virtually 100% of the time. This supposedly gives police probable cause to seize the cash under state or federal civil forfeiture laws.

Owners of property subject to civil forfeiture find themselves in an Alice-in-Wonderland legal landscape where the property seized is accused of a crime, rather than the owner. The owners must follow obscure rules that originate in Admiralty law, with which most attorneys aren't familiar. Under these rules, the seized property is presumed guilty, and it's up to its owner to demonstrate that the property is innocent. (Yes, it's bizarre, but it's the law!)

but I cannot agree if it's used to steal value from the currency over time.

Sorry but I will tell you frankly, this demonstrates low IQ thought process. Your IQ must not be above 120 (or you are not trying to think).

A small 3 - 5% (similar to the natural rate for gold) debasement doesn't steal.

1. It funds the damn coin mining, so your coins are not destroyed by a cartel.

2. How can it steal when the debasement doesn't drive the price? A healthy coin gets more demand and thus a higher price.

That stupid, hard-headed, goldbug nonsense has to go!

But the fundamental problem is designing the debasement mechanism in such a way that is keeps the value of the currency stable. First of all what are we measuring the "value" of the coin against, what is its value relative to, and how can we ensure that the thing it is pegged to is also stable. There simply is no way in my mind for how that can be achieved in a satisfactory manner, the only logical solution imo is a floating coin with a value determined by the free market and a stable currency supply which doesn't increase or decrease perpetually (which can be achieved by re-mining lost coins).

No shit Sherlock. What do you expect for raising such a stupid idea.

Stability is a non-existent thing in nature. Nature is relative and dynamic. I will once again suggest reading about what scientists know about what the Universe is made of (in short everything is relative, there is no invariant point of stability in the universe):

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

I am sorry, but I am so sick of dealing with low IQ nonsense when the person habitually repeats it without refuting the points that have been made already upthread showing that it is nonsense.

I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.

One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.

Agreed 1% is too high. There needs to be a tx fee, else (non-cartel) miners are not incentivized to include transactions in blocks. But 1% is ridiculous. 0.01% is probably enough.

A set tx fee would help to simplify wallet clients and be sure your transaction is accepted in the next block.

Dam Anonymint,  did you miss a prescription?

You probably could stop calling people low IQ ,.... wait for it....

If your elevated IQ statment regarding the relativity of all things in nature is true, then surely IQ comes under this broad umbrella,  and you are not only contradictory in comment , but owe Bit freak an apology.

To your " fee's siphoned back to create monopoly,  and it was all done by the NSA" narrative.  

Well I have to credit you with the idea,  but unfortunately the decentralized nature of consensus based information systems is just one of the stumbling blocks.

Another is that inequities in this system ( once widespread) ( that is to say labor is expended primarily for say BTC), well , said inequalities would more than likely cause the quick and immediate destruction,  reconstruction or parallelism,  of  of the system and/or another system.

So while I wouldn't write off your statments, and well I suppose you could be right, but this means that the NSA,  had zero foresight to understand the nature of future information systems.

Look upon TV ratings,  and tell me such future.

{ although I will concede I just recently pictured many a happy TV watcher lining upmfor a palm print to transact BTC without knowing who was recording the palm print and where the information was going,  on this net connected device }

so you know...

But please to be nice cost 0 BTC or NSAcoin or even USD.

[AnonyMint]

I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.

One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.

Agreed 1% is too high. There needs to be a tx fee, else (non-cartel) miners are not incentivized to include transactions in blocks. But 1% is ridiculous. 0.01% is probably enough.

A set tx fee would help to simplify wallet clients and be sure your transaction is accepted in the next block.

A percentage fee even if small is not as good as a small fee in coin units, because the cost for the network per transaction shouldn't vary by the value of the transaction, we don't want miners to ignore lower value transactions, and we want to disincentivize dust transactions.

Data transfer costs are below 10 cents per GB, thus even if each transaction causes 1MB in total network load, cost should be roughly 1/100 of a cent. If we expect the coin to ultimately be worth more than $1000, 1/10 millionth of the coin unit is a sufficient tx fee. Perhaps 1 millionth is better to allow some margin for increased network load and/or lower value of the coin.

Dam Anonymint,  did you miss a prescription?

You probably could stop calling people low IQ ,.... wait for it....

No. I am just tired of reading his repeated "debasement is stealing" illogic. Both Etlase2 and I have already refuted that upthread.

If your elevated IQ statment regarding the relativity of all things in nature is true, then surely IQ comes under this broad umbrella,

Of course single IQ measure of "g" can't measure the value of differing perspectives. But that is not the situation here. He is just wrong. The math is unarguable.

 and you are not only contradictory in comment , but owe Bit freak an apology.

No he owes me an apology for wasting my time with that nonsense. Else he can refute what I and Etlase2 already explained.

To your " fee's siphoned back to create monopoly,  and it was all done by the NSA" narrative.

Satoshi even admitted it. He predicted the mining would be done by large corporations in the future.  

Well I have to credit you with the idea,  but unfortunately the decentralized nature of consensus based information systems is just one of the stumbling blocks.

Another is that inequities in this system ( once widespread) ( that is to say labor is expended primarily for say BTC), well , said inequalities would more than likely cause the quick and immediate destruction,  reconstruction or parallelism,  of  of the system and/or another system.

So while I wouldn't write off your statments, and well I suppose you could be right, but this means that the NSA,  had zero foresight to understand the nature of future information systems.

Currencies are more long-lived than operating system monopolies, e.g. Windoze-- winner takes all and it is nearly impossible to unseat the currency that everyone else is already using, e.g. the dollar.

We have one chance to put a decentralized currency in place of the dollar, then the masses won't be interested in switching again, because the compelling differences won't exist for them any more.

[digitalindustry]

"Currencies are more long-lived than operating system monopolies, e.g. Windoze-- winner takes all and it is nearly impossible to unseat the currency that everyone else is already using, e.g. the dollar.

We have one chance to put a decentralized currency in place of the dollar, then the masses won't be interested in switching again, because the compelling differences won't exist for them any more."



Ok let me break this down:

1. People will stop watching TV.

2. People will become less retarded.

3. People HAVE stopped watching TV.

4. People HAVE become less retarded.

{see the trend here.}

5. TV is a single directional form of information, a system of control.

6. now add ({Poverty}) to the equation lets call that ({P})

7. We have better (generally and it only has to be a little bit ) educated people receiving multiple point of information {sending and receiving} {similar to a blockchain} lets call these people ({ME}) Multipoint Educated.

8 ME + P = BitFail.

But !

did we think of

9. ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"

Where ({E}) means the Epiphany of agencies and governments that at a point, they figure out its easier not to try to control people on mass ({ME}), but to instead work with them.

10. Because on a competitive stage -  {ME + P = BitFail}  isn't very productive , so if i'm Joe USA running {ME + P = BitFail} , and Jack Europe is running {ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"} and related solutions, who's society is going to move forward and who's society is going to descend into so sort of neo - Communism/Police state.

11. Police states are notably inefficient, (wait don't bring up Germany, think it though first..)

12. So humanity only needs one rational actor  , where by we can measure our success and failure , that rational actor seems to be the Russian Federation as they move towards freedom , not oppression  look at RT look at the free comments system , the success of this system, the rise of popularity do you believe this went unnoticed ?  

Summary:

Freedom works , and free markets work, and they tend to be the most system efficient thing we have, so generally if competition exists markets will tend towards a freer system.

I expect the Leaders of the Russian federation understand this, maybe they are just waiting for their friends to catch up ?  
no one is perfect, and its a fine line of course.



** Where "BitFail" is the attempt to control a mass of ({ME}) people without violence , as violence is a failure in its self , and thus may lead to that .

*** In the past becasue all information was controlled and directed (hopefully you agree) when ({P}) occurred , often so did a War , this was usually becasue the result of ({P}) could be directed by the control system to any convenient outlet.

**** you can see some of ({ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"}) in the recent "Snowden" and etc affairs, instead of looking negatively upon these things , one has to say these are positives ....

I don't want to get long winded here , but :

along the way to its ultimate failure as a system of control , there would need to be a transition , you see where at a point {think like a fluid} the TV system would have to "take on" ideas' from the ({ME}) so you see as multidimensional information competes with the control of information - the control system as its failing has to "adapt" to the continuing new situations, this "adaption" is a net positive .

becasue you see the glass the TV its self is of course not the problem its only the source of the information, so the Control system is constantly faced with an IF OR type situation ,

IF we ignore it what happens?

OR we have to try to "Spin" it.

it would take a lot of energy its quite an inefficient way to have to deal with information.

with "Snowden" etc, the Control System for the most part OR and tried to spin , which is a positive becasue it shows further integration.  

whereas you see in the past maybe the affair might have been "Deleted" .

[digitalindustry]

Of course if you read the news and many story's...

based on my above hypothesis, the USA looks like its failing or say may be a  "Failed State"

the seemingly rising Police violence etc, but I tend to take some of it with a grain of salt as I have to look (again) at the sources of that information.   

the USA has a bad corruption problem, but many rational actors inside.

[AnonyMint]

digitalindustry,

Nothing has changed with human nature and human failings. I stand by my statement that we get only one chance to make the digital currency for the world. Once the masses have adopted one, there won't be a chance to change it any more. Heck we already can't hard fork Bitcoin, because of the vested interests of the pools.

You simply don't understand that people don't change from the money that everyone else is accepting, unless the money they are using fails. We get one chance to change from the dollar (and Euro, etc), because all the governments of the world are bankrupt and they will be hunting down all the money and stealing it to pay for the socialism which is growing everywhere (including Russia which is corrupt as hell and bankrupt). And the EU is corrupt as hell too and bankrupt. Ditto China. Here is a page for you to read:

http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3179

P.S. I don't want to continue to argue this. I want to keep my comments focus on the technical points of the design of an altcoin which can replace Bitcoin.

[digitalindustry]

Agreed , I'll agree to disagree at this point .

I agree the blockchain issue needs focus..

[AnonyMint]

http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3544

Mancur Olsen's generative algorithm says that democracy ALWAYS individualizes the benefits (incentives for voters) and socialize the costs (debt). And debt is always future taxation.

Democracy is a power vacuum, which sucks in vested interests. The only possible way I can see to change this is to eliminate the ability of government to tax and spend. This is why I am a minanarchist (not anarchy). I think possibly (not certain) Bitcoin (or a replacement) might have the potential to restore some balance between private ownership of wealth and government's power to use force to tax.

==============================

http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3546

Panics in the 1800s were due to the private banks writing fractional receipts for gold on deposit, thus expanding debt and monetary velocity, until individual bank runs would reveal the insolvency of fractional receipts thus causing frequent corrections to the overexpansion of debt.

In the 1900s, we replaced this with centrally controlled fractional reserves, which has enabled the global system to run to extremely insane levels of debt without frequent correction. And this is going to end in a scorched earth.

There is no solution as documented in my upthread comment with link to Mancur Olsen's analysis. Decentralized currencies such as Bitcoin have the potential to bring us back to the 1800s with more frequent corrections, by restoring the balance-of-power between socialists and private enterprise. As a minanarchist, I would prefer that, but today the world is dominated by socialists and they will not like it. So there is fight coming. Sorry to say. I wish it wasn't so.

[AnonyMint]

Read in context at following link:

http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3549

============================

Guys thank you for both pointing out quite eloquently that the world has turned socialist, thus the "far-left" is now the "center-right". For me as a minanarchist (subset of Libertarian), any redistribution plan is "left" relative to a historical baseline. If the entire population is left, then I have to wait for them to kill themselves as leftists always do, so then the true "center-right" is restored after that.

They always kill themselves because they don't understand the basic premise of economics, which is that small things grow faster, thus any form of central planning is waste and bankruptcy, but not until after the socialists do everything they can do to disallow bankruptcy including gestapos, rationing, etc. I want to refer you to some specific comments I already made on this page, which go into more detailed explanation:

1800s vs. 1900s vs. 2000s coming

failure of centralized investment

why smaller things grow faster

illogic of collective central planning

The reason insurance is always failure is because it pools investments and the investments are thus centrally planned.

Sorry to you socialists but I remain a minanarchist because history has always repeated. The socialists get blinded by a recent 50 - 80 years, so then they drive over the cliff as they always do. How many genocides, dark ages, and massive economic implosions from history do you need me to cite and relate to the socialism that caused them. Of course the socialists will invent other causation theories. C'est la vie!

Since I am the only minanarchist here and since I think Dr. Pettis wants to hear from all sides, I hope you all understand why I have so many comments on this page, because I am the only person speaking from the other side on this page. Yes we are far outnumbered by the socialists, and that is why we need an anonymous weapon to survive the outcome of socialism, such as Bitcoin as I have suggested as a possibility (not certain).

[AnonyMint]

Read in context at following link:

http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3551

============================

very common to hear that government debt doesn’t matter if its denominated in by a currency issuer because the central bank can print as much as it wants to pay the bills

It is more or less garbage...

Prof. Pettis, are you refuting Paul Krugman's recent article where he wrote as quoted below?

terror of a debt crisis that keeps not happening, and, in fact, can’t happen to a country like the United States, which has its own currency and borrows in that currency. Yet the scaremongers can’t bring themselves to let go...

...He and his friends have been wrong about everything so far, and they literally have no idea what they’re talking about.

Krugman displays a debt-to-GDP chart which is extremely misleading because total debt ratio for the UK is over 500%! Additionally we know most of the western government unfunded liabilities are hiding off balance sheet.

Or here where Krugman misleadingly argues that Spain's 25% unemployment is due to not enough debt spending, when others of us believe the unemployment is structural for as long as socialism (and the requisite shared Euro currency) has stymied Spanish competitiveness.

The socialist Krugman appears to argue every problem can be smoothed (on the way to resolution) with Keynesian debt spending.

Krugman even thinks the drop in world trade growth has something to do with container ships and tariffs, and I guess he failed to realize there is trade in services and that lower international trade means lower economic growth (except short-term where the debt is rushing into unsaturated debt markets of the newly emerging countries, such as the Philippines which is growing faster than any other country in the world, if discounting China's GDP growth as a fabrication).

P.S. Hope you saw Krugman's blog post on the Chinese and Middle Easterners parking their (crony ill-gotten) cash in London flats. The G20 socialism cooperation will be going after all this wealth, some of it justifiably so, but unfortunately I postulate the honest upper middle-class small businessmen will get razed too, which will worsen the postulated future implosion.

[digitalindustry]

I need to read the pdf a couple of times...

Read the project wiki, the white-paper is quite out-dated now.

Im reading it now , why has it not been put forward to a test ?

Seems the only things left to do relate to  testing weaknesses.

Devs should be lining up. ?

[AnonyMint]

Monetary Darwinism. Listen to Daniel Krawisz at around the 34 min point:

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/e53-monetary-darwinism/#.UnmHJ3CBmfY

[digitalindustry]

Hope bitfreak! is still here lol

[AnonyMint]

The Problem with Altcoins.

[DAN444]

AnonyMint
I recently discovered your posts.
I find them very interesting and informative.
Thank you.

You once wrote that if government pays for everything, family doesnt matter much.
The collapse of former Soviet union seems to prove the contrary.
Are you familliar with Dmitry Orlov's book?
Orlov holds that the Soviet Union hit a “soft crash” because centralized planning, housing, agriculture, and transportation left an infrastructure private citizens could co-opt so that no one had to pay rent or go homeless and people showed up for work, even when they were not paid. He writes that Orlov believes the U.S. will have a hard crash, more like Germany’s Weimar Republic of the 1920s.
http://fora.tv/2009/02/13/Dmitry_Orlov_Social_Collapse_Best_Practices
(at 33 min)
Regards

[denisps]

I really like this Mini-Blockchain concept. The potential is limitless. I was thinking about the concept and want to share some of the ideas I came up with.

If instead of defining the accounts by single public key, we allow multiple public keys and a number that represents the number of signatures required we can create a whole set of account types without any scripts.
Let's say first we store a byte, first 4 bits of which represent the number of keys in the account and the next 4 bits represent the number of signatures required, then the following table will show what kinds of accounts that could potentially define:

Keys	Signatures	Account Type
1	1	Regular
2+	1	Joined
2+	Keys	Mutual Agreement
3	2	Escrow

There are more values that I can define which could just be used as constants to represent additional account types like trust fund and the like.

So for escrow, you could just send the money to the 2of3 address and when the other party fulfill or not fulfill the terms, that you can specify in the memo, they or you can create a transaction, sing it and send it to the other party or the escrow for the other required signature. In most cases, the escrow wouldn't even have to get involved.

Now, how nice would it be to have a trust account without relying on a trustee.

I also thought to share the addresses not as set of public keys, but as hash of the set. It would save a lot of space and simplify the database structure, but that might potentially compromise the security in case of hash collision because optional public keys could make a lot of room for nonce data. Unless the address itself is signed by each of the keys used which would validate each key. And considering that key generation is slow, especially combined with hashing the security will be intact.

The other idea is:
Instead of using a separate data structure to save all the balances of all the accounts and synchronize every version of it with the network.
Miners could just list all the affected account/balance pairs from the current block and all the account/balance pairs that weren't mentioned since the discarded block in the current block.

I came up with it as I still can't wrap my head around how would miners be able to get all the historical versions of the account tree to validate it's accuracy in every point in time.

[coloredcoin]

I will play a coloredcoin based this interesting mini-blockchain project.

[AnonyMint]

Now attack scenario. Suppose there is attacker with more than 50% of hashing power. He takes hash of current best block N and tries generating a next one but instead of using real account database he just create new one in which he holds all coins. If he is able to keep this chain in front of original one for as long as original network looses block N contents he can reveal his chain and it would look perfectly valid for all nodes because they lost track of how account database looked on block N.

It looks like algorithm presented in this paper is only as secure as mini blockchain is secure and if attacker could sustain 51% hashing power for as long as mini blockchain cycle completes it could cause much more severe problems than in bitcoin, because attacker could rewrite entire account balances database and not just make some double spends.

Essentially Bitcoin has the same risk for clients that don't download the entire transaction history, and the solution is the same which is to ask the peers that have the relevant transaction history to prove which chain is not valid.

On further thought, aaaxn's proposed attack is impossible if the cryptographic hash used to construct the Account Tree and Proof Chain can't be preimaged.

Because there is no way the attacker can find a suitable set of replacement addresses and balances to match the hash in the Proof Chain.

Thus all the discussion that followed aaaxn's post above regarding centralization and the need to remember transaction data history is irrelevant.