Thoughts on modifying the bitcoin codebase to implement a complementary currency

[nereer]

@topic

Bitcoins blockchain stuff is only necessary because it doesn't have a central authority.
You might want to change the p2p aspect to just connect to the central issuing server, which will create new blocks when new transactions come in.
This will give lower transaction times and lower (nonexistent) mining costs and full control over inflation, with no overtaking from others possible.
On the downside, you are probably a little more vulnerable against ddos attacks.
You can also keep the p2p aspect, but then you practically loose protection against double spending.

This is a serious point. Just to simplify what I think is your core question (correct me if I am wrong):

Why use bitcoin if there is a central issuing authority? Surely you could just use one of the proprietary systems that are out there, which are non-p2p and do exactly what you want?

Two reasons come to mind straight away:

1. CC/LETS systems have been debated and discussed by useless hippy types since time immemorial. They have rarely managed to get their ideas implemented for various reasons, but probably the biggest is end-user cynicism. Most people are incredibly skeptical of these systems; they have a very hard time imagining that they would work. And along came bitcoin and proved that a digital currency could and does work. This is like gold dust for those of us who are advocating CC/LETS systems.

2. There is a huge amount of development in the bitcoin community. If this proposed CompCoin was to share a similar codebase, many of the more useful projects could be incorporated fairly easily into it.

Complementary Currencies fill a need that bitcoin does not, and I believe that a CompCoin system could go hand-in-hand with adoption of bitcoin, as they provide different benefits. If a group of enthusiasts from the bitcoin community were to get involved we could create a codebase/template for setting up complementary/local currencies, that could be tailored to local conditions, it could help the development of bitcoin throughout the world, and help local communities build their economies without the need for government grants/funding.

[1715651509]

1715651509

[marcus_of_augustus]

Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

[Anonymous]

Cant you just create a version of bitcoin with all the coins already generated...then issue an official address linked to each person ?

Then the central wallet is the only one that can issue coins to people.

*scratches head.

Edit : Can you create a client that doesnt mine ?  Then that means the coins are only as secure as the server/site they are hosted on.

[matslats]

Hi,
I know what you mean about LETS groups, I've been working the last 3 years to serve them.
http://drupal.org/project/mutual_credit
This strategy is starting to pay off.

I do not think that these groups will be interested in bitcoin because:
-it's complicated
-it is far removed from simple mutual credit which many of them don't really understand.
-these groups prefer to operate in plain sight, than to use encryption
-they have no resources for accounting systems

Bitcoin is already a complementary currency. It just needs to find its niche. Probably the niche is close to where it is now, amongst techies and IT workers. I suggest you concentrate on filling this global niche.

However if anyone does want to work on Drupal for local communities, please get in touch.
Matthew

[nereer]

-it's complicated

complicated is relative, this is a complicated world. I am not sure that this is a disadvantage, you could just as well say bitcoin won't take off because it is complicated.

-it is far removed from simple mutual credit which many of them don't really understand.

The plan would be to make the frontend as simple as possible, and follow as many Mutual Credit precedents as possible

-these groups prefer to operate in plain sight, than to use encryption

I agree, which is why identification of users is an important factor. Encryption of the block chain etc. is part of bitcoin security and doesn't have anything to do with whether transactions are transparent or not.

-they have no resources for accounting systems

Indeed. This could be a problem, but my thoughts are that these systems will be build for bitcoin in due course.

I am still undecided whether there really is a point in trying to do this. There are other systems, that may well work (I have still yet to review them). My main motivation is to leverage the popularity of bitcoin to drive adoption of a Complementary Currency, my secondary is that bitcoin is going to have a huge amount of technical and other solutions to make digital currency more usable (e.g coincards, POS machines etc.)

I will have a look at your site when I get a chance. Thanks for your input.

[markm]

What others have been doing toward similar ends is to look forward to the so called "thin client" as the end-user software.

Your problems are all being projected out to the user end mostly because currenct Bitcoin clients are so called "thick clients".

Search the forum for references to these two flavours of client.

Basically the approach I have been seeing people use, and helping people test and use, amounts to only the blessed outlets, the mint itself and any authorised agents of the mint, running the current type of Bitcoin software.

Apparently it is technically feasible for "miners" to operate through "pools" wherein only the "pools" know what blockchain is being worked and what the ports and IP-addresses and passwords and so on for the network are. So if for any reason at some point it becomes necessary to hire processing power, hashing can be hired out to "miners" via blind pools where the miners need not know what blockchain(s) the pools are working nor what currencies nor how many coins the pool gets per block solved, all the miners need to know is how much they are to be paid per unit of work, in whatever currency they wish to be paid in.

So if at some point the network decides to open itself to the public, or if enough nodes (hitherto-authorised outlets) go rogue trying to take over the blockchain to make it necessary for extra processin power to be brought in, it can be bought from miners who have no knowledge of the currency in question they simply do hashes for some form of payment they like to be paid in.

This could work for example for something like a chain of Canadian Tire shops. Each shop could run a node, all transactions can be public if desired, each node has its map of which customer each account in that node's wallet belongs to so the identity problem is solved. The key here is simply to not let anyone except legitimate Canadian Tire stores connect to the network of Canadian Tire Coin nodes.

This is the approach being used so far by all the various bitcoin-variants my NickelBot and other IRC bots are working with. End users interface via the IRC bots not via bitcoind or bitcoin client.

-MarkM-