the "little toe" crypto currency

[grondilu]

WARNING:  this topic is just a crazy idea, I don't even know if it makes any sense.  Please be indulgent.


Today I was again responding to the classic critic about bitcoin, concerning the initial distribution, which was accused not to be "fair".

As I have already explained it, I see no other way than using CPU power to distribute an electronic decentralised anonymous currency.  I have already stated that this is probably some kind of a theorem that could be proved:

"The initial distribution of an electronic currency that is both decentralised and anonymous has to be related to the distribution of CPU power in the network."


However, I came up with quite a crazy idea about an alternative way to distribute a currency in a fair way.

I'd call it the toecoin.  It's just a crypto currency like bitcoin, but with a tiny, and yet quite huge difference.

Every human being has the right to receive 2 toecoins for free, just because he is a human being.  That's the rule.  The currency is decentralised and anonymous, and thus, according to my theorem, it can not be purely electronic.

Here is how it works.  I am a human being and I have no toecoin.  This is not normal, and I want to claim my right to own two toecoins.  I wait for the next block to be found.  For the sake of the discussion I'll imagine that the average time for discovering block is one day, and not six minutes.

Ok, there is a guy who finds a block.  Now here is the first difference with bitcoin:  the guy doesn't receive a reward yet.  He publishes the block, with a spectial generation transaction, but this transaction doesn't worth anything yet.

I hurry and I go this guy's place, or some public place meeting address he published on the web.  I have some time to do so.  About 24 hours.

Here I am at the place, and I am not the only one.  Basically a whole bunch of toecoinless people who wants to claim their toecoins just as I do.  Now, the guy, because he has found the proof of work, he is granted the right to give 2 toecoins to anyone he wants, under one condition that I will describe later.  He could give them to himself, if he fullfills the condition.

Negociation start.  Everybody will promess to give a fraction of their new toecoins to the guy.  There is some kind of an auction which starts.  Let's say I'm the winner.  I promess to pay 0.2 toecoins.  Most people didn't agree to pay more than 0.15.  They'll have to wait an other day, an other block.

To have the right to receive the 2 toecoins (1.8 after I give 0.2 to the block discover), I have to do the following:

1.  I cut each of my little toes and I film the scene.  This will prevent me from getting more than two toecoins later in my life;
2.  I have to put the toes in a machine that will analyse the toe fingerprint and the DNA and turn the corresponding data into a unique ECDSA private key.  This will ensure that the created toecoins do indeed belong to the person who cut his toes, because it should be possible for me to have computed the ECDSA key in the past (I can analyse my DNA and print my fingerprints).  The whole process has to be public and recorded so that anyone can verify there has been no fraud.


This sounds silly, but my aim is to show how difficult it would be to distribute something in a "fair" way in a decentralised, anonymous manner.  At some point, I really think you would have to use people's flesh, meaning that the money can not be purely electronic.

[FreeMoney]

Well that took a disturbing turn at the end.

[mpkomara]

won't work -- not enough significant digits.

[grondilu]

won't work -- not enough significant digits.

The real flesh toes are necessary only for initial distribution of the currency.  Once created, the toecoins can be exchanged electronically as any cryptocurrency.

[ribuck]

We could skip the blockchain stuff and just use amputated human toes as money. Maybe teeth would work better because they're not so messy.

[genjix]

[genjix]

In African countries such as Tanzania and Burundi, there has been an unprecedented rise in witchcraft-related killings of albino people in recent years. This is because albino body parts are used in potions sold by witchdoctors. Numerous authenticated incidents have occurred in Africa during the 21st Century. For example, in Tanzania, in September 2009, three men were convicted of killing a 14-year-old albino boy and severing his legs in order to sell them for witchcraft purposes. Again in Tanzania and Burundi in 2010, the murder and dismemberment of a kidnapped albino child is reported from the courts, as part of a continuing problem.

Fuck it! Lets do it!! I have a get rich quick scheme.

[eMansipater]

won't work -- not enough significant digits.

I'm assuming this was pun intended

[Anonymous]

What about the day they can grow a human part from any cell ?

Attack of the toeclones

 

[TiagoTiago]

1. cut toes
2. sprinkle pig's bladder dust
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!!!!!!!

[grondilu]

won't work -- not enough significant digits.

I'm assuming this was pun intended

Yeah,  I had missed it.

[Nefario]

won't work -- not enough significant digits.

I'm assuming this was pun intended

Yeah,  I had missed it.

Brilliang 

[theboos]

From what I understand, bitcoin and currency in general is not supposed to be "distributed in a fair way". Bitcoins, like dollars, flow from consumers to vendors or suppliers to employees. Employees are also consumers, so the wealth ends up in the hands of whoever supplies more than he consumes. I just don't see the point of the whole toe system.

[Bimmerhead]

I guess everybody has their own idea of what is "fair", or even that there is a right to their definition of fair.
If I was supreme leader, my definition of "fair" would include giving Satoshi, the other developers, and people who furthered the growth of bitcoin a larger share of the btc.

Some others might think Satoshi should get it all, and yet somebody else might think the government should have control and distribute at will. 

The question isn't "is it fair".  The question is, "is this the way of the future, and will I be sitting on the platform or will I be on this train when it leaves the station - whether I'm in First Class or baggage."

Sometimes it's more fun to challenge people's assumptions and definitions, that to simply assume what they are saying is valid and trying to answer it.

[grondilu]

I guess everybody has their own idea of what is "fair", or even that there is a right to their definition of fair.
If I was supreme leader, my definition of "fair" would include giving Satoshi, the other developers, and people who furthered the growth of bitcoin a larger share of the btc.

Some others might think Satoshi should get it all, and yet somebody else might think the government should have control and distribute at will. 

The question isn't "is it fair".  The question is, "is this the way of the future, and will I be sitting on the platform or will I be on this train when it leaves the station - whether I'm in First Class or baggage."

Sometimes it's more fun to challenge people's assumptions and definitions, that to simply assume what they are saying is valid and trying to answer it.

To me bitcoin is absolutely fair, because the rules are the same for everyone, and you are not forced to take part.

For some people however, bitcoin is not fair because:

* people who have the greatest processing power gets to generate more bitcoins than others;
* people who get to know about bitcoin's existence first get to generate more bitcoins (since the difficulty was lower when they started);


It's annowing as hell to have to respond to those critics.  We should write something good about it and put it in the FAQ.

[eMansipater]

If it helps, people are welcome to describe bitcoin as a system built by one person, Satoshi, who therefore owned all the bitcoins.  By giving them strong cryptographic security and a provable maximum quantity, he gradually convinced others to value and use them.  And he graciously paid every person who generated a block for the system 50 BTC, then 25, and so on by preset schedule.  Given that Satoshi has paid out millions of dollars worth of bitcoins he seems like a pretty generous guy!

[stakhanov]

Your system would be a strong incentive to have children just to cut their toes off... Not great IMHO

[abstraction]

Hey, miss, can I get your digits?

[jav]

This sounds silly, but my aim is to show how difficult it would be to distribute something in a "fair" way in a decentralised, anonymous manner.  At some point, I really think you would have to use people's flesh, meaning that the money can not be purely electronic.

I agree, it's very difficult to distribute fair in a decentralized manner. Maybe even impossible (?). Because even that crazy toe system doesn't actual solve it, does it? How do you make sure that a person who finds a block actually holds such an auction? They could just make up a new private key - claim it came from one of those toe DNA machines you are describing - and transfer the money there. Essential you would need to be able to verify for every coin that a unique toe cutting event happened for it - even with that video you were mentioning it would probably not be feasible to make sure that it is actually a new video instead of just a slightly modified copy of one of the millions of videos already recorded.

To distribute fair you need to be able to establish unique identities. I would think there are just two ways of doing that: Have a central registry (think government issued id cards) or have a web-of-trust. So maybe the Ripple system is a better fit for those people who want their "fair share".

But really, I find this whole complain that the distribution of Bitcoins is not fair pretty ridiculous. It's simply first-come-first-serve, a principle which is in effect in many places without people complaining. Do these critics also come to a concert late, and then complain how all the best spots are already taking and the whole concert is just sooo unfair?

[mpkomara]

this little piggy went to the market