Bitcoin Supernode System

[rpietila]

Also, I was wondering if you were expecting nodes to conform to some sort of predefined moral standard? Like a code of conduct. Or is everyone free to act as they wish according to their own personal standards?

I don't currently believe that anyone would seriously have a different general morality. Maybe I am blind, but my experience on human behavior points me to this way. Don't kill, don't steal, do not harm ladies. I have organized meetings where it's been very easy for all to conform to these.

The court etiquette is something that does not happen in the outside world (or if does, then we are not part of those circles). We are quite open to define it according to the way we want. For me it's been really easy to behave in a very courteous way, but I have to admit it has sometimes lead to funny confrontations when e.g. I ate such a good salad during lunchtime that I want to tip the waitress more than she charged for the salad. I told, I give according to the value I received, not according to their pricing. That one went well, but in Haikko they did not cash out the tips during the allotted time, and also did not offer me a realistic way to pay the bill.

[julz]

While I don't have any interest in participating in some techno-feudal system - I find it conceptually interesting.

Could you clarify who the fee is paid to and how it is managed?
My apologies if I've missed this.

It seems to me that Bitcoin's multi-key facilities offer a unique and powerful way to manage such hierarchies.
If the fee were paid to those next higher in the chain, but in such a way that it *also* required a quorum (not necessarily a majority) comprised from those paying to sign transactions - there could be advantages in terms of accountability and faith in fund management.
e.g A transaction by an Earl (from the pool of working funds provided from his viscounts) may require blockchain signatures from any 3 of his viscounts.
Perhaps a certain number of viscounts could co-sign a transaction allowing them to withdraw (most.. ie less reasonable fee) of the money they currently have under control of the Earl - in order to withdraw and form allegiance to a different Earl.
Such mechanisms would favour diplomacy and agreement - but allow more forceful action via the blockchain if diplomacy broke down.

Absent such controls - I don't see that such hierarchies would gain much scale - but if participants feel that they ultimately have a bit more control, they may be more likely to participate.

That said - the 'bible' references creep me out somewhat - and wealth is effectively an ad-hoc hierarchy in itself, so I'm not really sure why people would ally themselves into structures like this.

[greyhawk]

That said - the 'bible' references creep me out somewhat -

I wouldn't worry. It's not like reptilio had a Finnish TV station do an expose on the weird cult he's leading.


Oh, wait. That DID happen. Oh dear.

[rpietila]

I think this is a good closing comment. I indeed have been a public person ever since 2006, when I partnered O.P. in "Storm Warning for the Economy" TV-talkshow. Since that I have been featured in most Finnish tv-channels. Both the silver-cup-in-my-head and the Silverclub pose in the previous posting, are from 2011 when they tried to make a cult out of my friends. Well, they did, and we are still friends with the key players.

Just got off phone with my friend who estimated that since 2010, our influence to the world has 10-doubled. It will still increase (note: I am not suggesting that its is somehow my/our goal to increase influence), and the supernode system may or may not be instrumental in that. I think the world may be ready for it when we are 33% through towards $300k. I will therefore try to wake the supernode network up with the same parameters when bitcoin price hits $1.4 per mBTC. My friend did not believe it, but he invited me for sailing, so I kind of cannot lose.

I will lock the thread now, and resurrect it if at $1400 it still feels viable.