MoonShadow (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
 |
February 29, 2012, 01:07:49 AM |
|
Does anyone here have an intimate knowledge of Faircash? ( http://faircash.org/home.html) From what I can tell, it's a central bank for a cryptographic token based digital currency. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
worldinacoin
|
|
February 29, 2012, 01:09:35 AM |
|
First time I seen it, I don't know anyone accepting it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010
|
|
February 29, 2012, 01:22:06 AM |
|
From what I can tell, it's a central bank for a cryptographic token based digital currency.
Kind of like a patented, closed-source, privately managed version of what anyone else can do using open source nowadays (including with Open Transactions)?: - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Open_Transactions |
|
|
|
MoonShadow (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
February 29, 2012, 01:25:51 AM |
|
Currently reading the creator's dissertation, and encountered this gem...
"Following the cash paradigm, it needs to be done peer-to-peer and offline in a repeatable way. Such a transfer is called teleportation. The main technical problem is to guarantee fairness under all circumstances. The fundamental effect of the Byzantine Generals’ undecidability state issue (see page 57) does not allow conducting such a transfer without a (trusted) third party. This fact seems to contradict the offline attribute of the aspired cash transfer. To the author’s knowledge, there has not been any treatment of this challenging problem, neither in the practical field nor in the literature over the last 10 years.[/b]"
It appears that this person, likely German born and a graduate student in California, has been researching the academic media available on the subject of digital currencies, and managed to completely overlook Bitcoin during the past two years. Poor bastard, I hope that he managed to complete his degree, at least.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
February 29, 2012, 01:42:52 AM |
|
My initial impression of the protocol, as explained in the dissertaition, is that it's much like the exchange of cryptographic tokens over a ssh connection directly between peers, as well as a digital receipt of said transaction, with a built in mediation system upon the breakdown of honesty. Based upon that limited initial impression, I can think of a number of ways to screw with the system that wouldn't work with bitcoin, mostly modified web-of-trust attacks.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
mrb
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1027
|
|
February 29, 2012, 09:21:42 AM |
|
fairCASH seems very similar to the (now defunct) eCash... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcashEmail them, and ask them how they differ from eCash  |
|
|
|
|
|
memvola
|
|
February 29, 2012, 10:05:55 AM |
|
I don't think off-line transactions would work without a considerable degree of external enforcement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the extent that Chaum's (and others') scheme can manage double-spend is that the spender's identity may be revealed when it's discovered. Otherwise, there isn't enough information available to connect two distinct transactions to a single spender. After that, it's up to centralized management to deal with it. Maybe you always hold some collateral at the user's account. Maybe you involve the police. That's the extent it works.
That's why I think it's not more feasible than on-line transactions. You can create a similar regime built on top of Bitcoin, where addresses are signed and guaranteed by an authority that keeps collateral (or ID information). When an off-line double-spend occurs, the authority can manage the situation.
Are there any advantages of Faircash in this context that I might have overlooked?
(edited for clarification)
|
|
|
|
|
|
