BakCoin (was: decline in listening nodes)

[tvbcof]

...big snip...

Well, my 4 year old android cell phone has more processing power than the most powerful Cray available 30 years ago.  That said, why does Joe Sick Pack need to run a full client(supernode) himself?  Why can't he hire a service to act in his behalf?  Or if he doesn't want to trust some corporation to track his balances (such as BitcoinSpinner) what stops him from joining or starting a co-op to do that for him?  Why is it full client or bust?

Certain of your points are well taken and I'm honestly not trying to discount them, but I think it worthwhile to cut to the chase real quick.  I'll try to get back to some of them.

I can envision a plausible and very high capacity solution where peers (of a high-caliber variety) offset the load by juggling the processing of block and reduction of them to Merkle trees, and also back-fill necessary transaction details on an as-needed basis.  After observing the BIP16/17 struggles, I'm not holding my breath for such a solution to materialize as a proven thing, nor am I looking forward to making the transition...but I'm drifting back toward being a bit more of a troll than I wish to be at this time...

To answer your bolded question:  "Because we can."

I felt a high degree of confidence in Bitcoin when I owned and controlled the entire block-chain and it was sitting on my desk.  Beyond the perception that this is what was mainly advertised, I naturally prefer the simplest solution possible to meet an objective.  All of my engineering experience indicates that this is the most reliable way to achieve the results that I want.  And my wants of a crypto-currency is mostly that I can use it reliably and not get cheated.

I cannot say that I find a 'one-world' crypto-currency to be much more palatable than a 'one-world' fiat currency, and that is even more the case if utilization is moderated by transaction fees to some extent.  Beyond that, I see no really compelling win and a lot of dis-advantages in terms of complexity and flexibility by pushing the envelop in order to achieve one.  The one argument for it that I see as highly compelling is the 'strength in numbers' argument.  My idea of coupling a dynamic collection of crypto-currencies only just tightly enough to enjoy the strength part but not tightly enough to encumber one another's being otherwise reflects this.

...big snip...

[1713559315]

1713559315

[1713559315]

1713559315

[1713559315]

1713559315

[tvbcof]

Snip - planning to get back to these points later...for better or worse depending on my mood...

Anything cold serve as a 'reserve currency' that met the demands of those using it. 

That's true enough, taken alone.  usually such need-meeting things have a set of common characteristics that lead most people to collectively refer to such things as "money".  So deliberately creating a currency that is the reverse of good money seems like a poor design decision.

In this case I think that the most critical aspect would be that people trust it.  A good part of my design philosophy here is to reduce the reason for people _not_ to trust it and/or trust it more than other things as a basis for notation.

So that I am clear on this, are you trying to move the trust metric away from the unit of currency?  Bitcoin tries to eleminate the need for trusted intermediaries and onto the collective protocol & network; are you trying to create a currency that no one trusts for anything

It is a misnomer to think of 'bakcoin' as money or currency at all.  If anything, it is simply a notational instrument that helps gauge the popularity of crypto-currency solutions.

or are you trying to move the trust onto the exchanges that would be using bakcoin to start their own smaller cryptocurrencies?

The bold part is as close as one can come to encapsulating the very core goal of the project.

The 'exchanges' part are not really a factor, and not of much interest to me personally.  The free market will work things out in this respect.  Hopefully most people who are particularly interested in exchanges would not find bakcoin very appealing and would mainly ignore it.

My document currently does not expand on the concept that all of the 'sponsored exchange currencies' may gain some significant advantages by sharing the workload or supporting bakcoin.  For instance, they can use it as a free-form notepad (of modest size) and everyone will be securing everyone else's notes.  So, there may be other advantages that gold or seashells don't really provide.

I see a number of reasons that I wouldn't trust it for anything, based on just your implied design.  If I, as an end user wouldn't trust it as a medium of exchange, why would I trust an exchange that used it as a backing for their own vanity cryptocurrency?  In turn, why should the exchanges trust it, or each other?

Trust in just about anything has a significant 'monkey see, monkey do' component.  That's why Au which is actually quite useless is highly sought after.  (Parenthetically, I contend that the very simple nature of a chunk of gold has more than a little to do with it's reliability and thus the trust that it can muster.  This gets back to my 'simpler is better' philosophy.)

Trust can evaporate very quickly if people get burnt by trusting something, or see other monkeys getting burnt.  Indeed, my trust in many of the efforts to centralize control of masses of BTC value is quite low due to a fairly impressive legacy of fail here.  Similarly, I have more than a small amount of suspicion of those who make a profit by snatching fractions of BTC as they pass through time and space.  That renders the Bitcoin solution close to par with existing fiat solutions at a functional level and from the standpoint of the user (me.)

Yes, I considered jumping on-board and gearing up to run transfer nodes in a datacenter for fun and profit.  I still might, but the reality is that it is not my thing and I believe I would feel better about applying any effort I might put into crypto-currencies in a different direction.

[MoonShadow]

or are you trying to move the trust onto the exchanges that would be using bakcoin to start their own smaller cryptocurrencies?

The bold part is as close as one can come to encapsulating the very core goal of the project.

The 'exchanges' part are not really a factor, and not of much interest to me personally.  The free market will work things out in this respect.  Hopefully most people who are particularly interested in exchanges would not find bakcoin very appealing and would mainly ignore it.

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

My document currently does not expand on the concept that all of the 'sponsored exchange currencies' may gain some significant advantages by sharing the workload or supporting bakcoin.  For instance, they can use it as a free-form notepad (of modest size) and everyone will be securing everyone else's notes.  So, there may be other advantages that gold or seashells don't really provide.

I see a number of reasons that I wouldn't trust it for anything, based on just your implied design.  If I, as an end user wouldn't trust it as a medium of exchange, why would I trust an exchange that used it as a backing for their own vanity cryptocurrency?  In turn, why should the exchanges trust it, or each other?

Trust in just about anything has a significant 'monkey see, monkey do' component.  That's why Au which is actually quite useless is highly sought after.  (Parenthetically, I contend that the very simple nature of a chunk of gold has more than a little to do with it's reliability and thus the trust that it can muster.  This gets back to my 'simpler is better' philosophy.)

While gold has been largely useless for any other reason than money or to make pretty things for women for most of the 6000 years it's been in use, this is no longer true.  It's not used in industry not because it doesn't have real uses for it's unique physical characteristics, but because it's monetary value prices it outside of those uses.  It's actually more abundent in our modern world than silver, because silver has significant industrial uses that largely cannot be substituted for less than the market value of the silver.  If the monetary value of gold were to ever crash completely, gold would hit the open market for a great many products.

Trust can evaporate very quickly if people get burnt by trusting something, or see other monkeys getting burnt.  Indeed, my trust in many of the efforts to centralize control of masses of BTC value is quite low due to a fairly impressive legacy of fail here. 

Those were all failures of centralization, not of bitcoin.  Those would tend to limit the trend towards centralization, begetting more paranoid users like yourself who seek other solutions.  This is a feature, not a bug.

Similarly, I have more than a small amount of suspicion of those who make a profit by snatching fractions of BTC as they pass through time and space.  That renders the Bitcoin solution close to par with existing fiat solutions at a functional level and from the standpoint of the user (me.)

You're going to have to explain that one.  Because user can choose to offer a transaction fee means that bitcoin is no differant than fiat systems?  Really?  You do know that you don't actually have to pay those fees, right?

Yes, I considered jumping on-board and gearing up to run transfer nodes in a datacenter for fun and profit.  I still might, but the reality is that it is not my thing and I believe I would feel better about applying any effort I might put into crypto-currencies in a different direction.

To each his own.  Honestly I hope you do get your altcoin going, because I truely believe that every one of us are here for a purpose; and if you can't be an example you might as well be a warning.

[MoonShadow]

...big snip...

Well, my 4 year old android cell phone has more processing power than the most powerful Cray available 30 years ago.  That said, why does Joe Sick Pack need to run a full client(supernode) himself?  Why can't he hire a service to act in his behalf?  Or if he doesn't want to trust some corporation to track his balances (such as BitcoinSpinner) what stops him from joining or starting a co-op to do that for him?  Why is it full client or bust?

To answer your bolded question:  "Because we can."

Prove it.

[tvbcof]

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

Huh?  Exchanges have nothing to do with issuing crypto-currencies any more than they currently do for Bitcoin.  That's the job of designers and communities which interact with the designers (voluntarily in my idealized conception of things.) 

Trust in just about anything has a significant 'monkey see, monkey do' component. ...

While gold has been largely useless for any other reason than money or to make pretty things for women for most of the 6000 years it's been in use, this is no longer true.  It's not used in industry not because it doesn't have real uses for it's unique physical characteristics, but because it's monetary value prices it outside of those uses.  It's actually more abundent in our modern world than silver, because silver has significant industrial uses that largely cannot be substituted for less than the market value of the silver.  If the monetary value of gold were to ever crash completely, gold would hit the open market for a great many products.

That kind of makes my point.

Trust can evaporate very quickly if people get burnt by trusting something, or see other monkeys getting burnt.  Indeed, my trust in many of the efforts to centralize control of masses of BTC value is quite low due to a fairly impressive legacy of fail here. 

Those were all failures of centralization, not of bitcoin.  Those would tend to limit the trend towards centralization, begetting more paranoid users like yourself who seek other solutions.  This is a feature, not a bug.

Similarly, I have more than a small amount of suspicion of those who make a profit by snatching fractions of BTC as they pass through time and space.  That renders the Bitcoin solution close to par with existing fiat solutions at a functional level and from the standpoint of the user (me.)

You're going to have to explain that one.  Because user can choose to offer a transaction fee means that bitcoin is no differant than fiat systems?  Really?  You do know that you don't actually have to pay those fees, right?

Yes, I considered jumping on-board and gearing up to run transfer nodes in a datacenter for fun and profit.  I still might, but the reality is that it is not my thing and I believe I would feel better about applying any effort I might put into crypto-currencies in a different direction.

To each his own.  Honestly I hope you do get your altcoin going, because I truely believe that every one of us are here for a purpose; and if you can't be an example you might as well be a warning.

Don't hold your breath.  I've a very short attention span and would need to significantly develop certain skills which I lack.

Really my main goal with 'bakcoin.org' is to help break out a few folks who might have fallen into the old tunnel vision trap and get them to consider the possibility of a wider perspective.  I'd be content to achieve simply that, but would be generally proud of doing something more so who knows what the future holds.

[tvbcof]

Why is it full client or bust?

To answer your bolded question:  "Because we can."

Prove it.

Not necessary.  Among the things that Bitcoin has done for the world, and for which I have the utmost respect, is exactly this.

[MoonShadow]

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

Huh?  Exchanges have nothing to do with issuing crypto-currencies any more than they currently do for Bitcoin.  That's the job of designers and communities which interact with the designers (voluntarily in my idealized conception of things.) 

Wouldn't that then make the designers the new central bankers?

To each his own.  Honestly I hope you do get your altcoin going, because I truely believe that every one of us are here for a purpose; and if you can't be an example you might as well be a warning.

Don't hold your breath.  I've a very short attention span and would need to significantly develop certain skills which I lack.

Sure seems that you've already spent a great deal of time just on the website.

Really my main goal with 'bakcoin.org' is to help break out a few folks who might have fallen into the old tunnel vision trap and get them to consider the possibility of a wider perspective.  I'd be content to achieve simply that, but would be generally proud of doing something more so who knows what the future holds.

Based upon what I've seen thus far, i would have to say that I'm of the opinion that you have failed in this endeavor.

[MoonShadow]

Why is it full client or bust?

To answer your bolded question:  "Because we can."

Prove it.

Not necessary.  Among the things that Bitcoin has done for the world, and for which I have the utmost respect, is exactly this.

You're going to have to prove that you can do it without supernodes, because bitcoin certainly hasn't displayed that capacity.  Again, full nodes are supernodes; so I want to know how you can create a cryptocurrency to compete with bitcoin without full nodes and without further centrallization.  I say it's not possible, and want you to prove your statement that you can.

[tvbcof]

Similarly, I have more than a small amount of suspicion of those who make a profit by snatching fractions of BTC as they pass through time and space.  That renders the Bitcoin solution close to par with existing fiat solutions at a functional level and from the standpoint of the user (me.)

You're going to have to explain that one.  Because user can choose to offer a transaction fee means that bitcoin is no differant than fiat systems?  Really?  You do know that you don't actually have to pay those fees, right?

'close to par on a functional level' -ne (not equal) 'no different than'.

I can see a fairly high probability that you can 'choose' not to pay the transfer fee and get very poor service, if any, as a result.  Eventually.  Such a situation would be nearly inevitable if the barrier to entry for running transfer nodes is high, the cost is non-trivial, and it becomes practical only in select geo-political environments.

So the argument would effectively apply to Mexico.  Nothing particularly wrong there because one can 'choose' to pay off the street cop.  Or you can 'choose' not to and go through the justice system...if you are lucky.  Just the free market at work.

[tvbcof]

Why is it full client or bust?

To answer your bolded question:  "Because we can."

Prove it.

Not necessary.  Among the things that Bitcoin has done for the world, and for which I have the utmost respect, is exactly this.

You're going to have to prove that you can do it without supernodes, because bitcoin certainly hasn't displayed that capacity.  Again, full nodes are supernodes; so I want to know how you can create a cryptocurrency to compete with bitcoin without full nodes and without further centrallization.  I say it's not possible, and want you to prove your statement that you can.

As long as my i386 router can be a full peer in the p2p network, I don't give a damn what it is called.

Bitcoin in it's present form supports a surprising number of enthusisest in our community just fine and still has significant room to grow in it's present 'undeveloped' form.  If the flexibility existed to do some non-trivial tweaks to the protocol that could likely add significantly to it's life expectancy.

My solution to the problem is simply to break the economies into parts which fit what the users might find comfortable, and I contend that these can be of sufficient size to meet most of an individuals needs.

While it is kinda cool to have my Skittles purchase live alongside someone's goat cheese sale in Mongolia, there is no compelling advantage, and almost no plausible advantage, to me as a user.  If it means pushing the monetary solution into what I and at least some others consider to be risky contortions, the choice for me is a clear one.  Given that choices exist of course.  I did document an expectation that a large contingent of Bitcoin community would resist with vigor and for a variety of reasons.

[imsaguy]

It feels as though you've flipflopped on the arguments.. What exactly is your point again?

[tvbcof]

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

Huh?  Exchanges have nothing to do with issuing crypto-currencies any more than they currently do for Bitcoin.  That's the job of designers and communities which interact with the designers (voluntarily in my idealized conception of things.) 

Wouldn't that then make the designers the new central bankers?

No more an no less than Satoshi, Gavin, and co are with Bitcoin.

To each his own.  Honestly I hope you do get your altcoin going, because I truely believe that every one of us are here for a purpose; and if you can't be an example you might as well be a warning.

Don't hold your breath.  I've a very short attention span and would need to significantly develop certain skills which I lack.

Sure seems that you've already spent a great deal of time just on the website.

Couple of afternoons + a few minutes to register the domain.

Most of the work was done in the shower.

Really my main goal with 'bakcoin.org' is to help break out a few folks who might have fallen into the old tunnel vision trap and get them to consider the possibility of a wider perspective.  I'd be content to achieve simply that, but would be generally proud of doing something more so who knows what the future holds.

Based upon what I've seen thus far, i would have to say that I'm of the opinion that you have failed in this endeavor.

Time will tell.  Actually it probably won't.  What I allude to is probably not the kind of thing which will have an obvious outward facing marker.

[MoonShadow]

Why is it full client or bust?

To answer your bolded question:  "Because we can."

Prove it.

Not necessary.  Among the things that Bitcoin has done for the world, and for which I have the utmost respect, is exactly this.

You're going to have to prove that you can do it without supernodes, because bitcoin certainly hasn't displayed that capacity.  Again, full nodes are supernodes; so I want to know how you can create a cryptocurrency to compete with bitcoin without full nodes and without further centrallization.  I say it's not possible, and want you to prove your statement that you can.

As long as my i386 router can be a full peer in the p2p network, I don't give a damn what it is called.

Bitcoin in it's present form supports a surprising number of enthusisest in our community just fine and still has significant room to grow in it's present 'undeveloped' form.  If the flexibility existed to do some non-trivial tweaks to the protocol that could likely add significantly to it's life expectancy.

As I've already mentioned, such flexibility not only exists, it was part of the original protocol from the beginning, those 'tweeks' are just not part of the running code at this time.

My solution to the problem is simply to break the economies into parts which fit what the users might find comfortable, and I contend that these can be of sufficient size to meet most of an individuals needs.

That sounds fine, but you don't offer a how.

While it is kinda cool to have my Skittles purchase live alongside someone's goat cheese sale in Mongolia, there is no compelling advantage, and almost no plausible advantage, to me as a user.  If it means pushing the monetary solution into what I and at least some others consider to be risky contortions, the choice for me is a clear one.  Given that choices exist of course. 

What stops any major vendor from using bitcoin as a backing for a store currency?  After all, that's exactly what gift cards & store credit are, store currencies that are fixed to & backed by the US $.  WalMart could do this with bitcoin tomorow, permitting bitcoin users to submit bitcoins into a website for store credit onto a gift card thus bundling as many transactions that the user desires to use that card for into the single bitcoin transaction that placed the credit onto the card.  This solves teh problem with regard to scalibility, locality, transaction fees & clearing delays with bitcoin proper; at the expense of a 'local' centralization in the sense that one must trust walmart to ack honorableley with as much value as one is willing to trust them with, yet this method doesn't require some new & untested (much less undeveloped) proposal.

I did document an expectation that a large contingent of Bitcoin community would resist with vigor and for a variety of reasons.

For a varity of valid reasons, I should add.  Not simply FUD.

[MoonShadow]

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

Huh?  Exchanges have nothing to do with issuing crypto-currencies any more than they currently do for Bitcoin.  That's the job of designers and communities which interact with the designers (voluntarily in my idealized conception of things.) 

Wouldn't that then make the designers the new central bankers?

No more an no less than Satoshi, Gavin, and co are with Bitcoin.

Bullshit.  Neither Gavin nor Satoshi have it in their power to create bitcoins at will against the consent of the current community, which neither could ever hope to garner.  While any version of linden dollars or WoW gold, whether officially backed with something else or not, can be created in mass by whomever has direct root access to the server that manages that currency.

To each his own.  Honestly I hope you do get your altcoin going, because I truely believe that every one of us are here for a purpose; and if you can't be an example you might as well be a warning.

Don't hold your breath.  I've a very short attention span and would need to significantly develop certain skills which I lack.

Sure seems that you've already spent a great deal of time just on the website.

Couple of afternoons + a few minutes to register the domain.

Most of the work was done in the shower.

Whatever that means, I most certainly do not want further details.

Really my main goal with 'bakcoin.org' is to help break out a few folks who might have fallen into the old tunnel vision trap and get them to consider the possibility of a wider perspective.  I'd be content to achieve simply that, but would be generally proud of doing something more so who knows what the future holds.

Based upon what I've seen thus far, i would have to say that I'm of the opinion that you have failed in this endeavor.

Time will tell.  Actually it probably won't.  What I allude to is probably not the kind of thing which will have an obvious outward facing marker.

I don't even know what that means.

[tvbcof]

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

Huh?  Exchanges have nothing to do with issuing crypto-currencies any more than they currently do for Bitcoin.  That's the job of designers and communities which interact with the designers (voluntarily in my idealized conception of things.) 

Wouldn't that then make the designers the new central bankers?

No more an no less than Satoshi, Gavin, and co are with Bitcoin.

Bullshit.  Neither Gavin nor Satoshi have it in their power to create bitcoins at will against the consent of the current community, which neither could ever hope to garner.  While any version of linden dollars or WoW gold, whether officially backed with something else or not, can be created in mass by whomever has direct root access to the server that manages that currency.

In this respect (among many others) Satoshi/Gavin/et-al have set a very workable example for the relationship between the 'designers' and the 'user community'.  For this reason it is most likely that it would serve as the model for other such efforts.  Or at least efforts which are likely to go anywhere.

Not sure where you got the idea that there is anything particularly different in my conception of the various exchange currencies (or even 'bakcoin', for that matter) compared to Bitcoin.

[MoonShadow]

So, if the exchanges are issuing their own cryptocurrencies backed with bakcoin, how does that make them any different than a central bank?

Huh?  Exchanges have nothing to do with issuing crypto-currencies any more than they currently do for Bitcoin.  That's the job of designers and communities which interact with the designers (voluntarily in my idealized conception of things.) 

Wouldn't that then make the designers the new central bankers?

No more an no less than Satoshi, Gavin, and co are with Bitcoin.

Bullshit.  Neither Gavin nor Satoshi have it in their power to create bitcoins at will against the consent of the current community, which neither could ever hope to garner.  While any version of linden dollars or WoW gold, whether officially backed with something else or not, can be created in mass by whomever has direct root access to the server that manages that currency.

In this respect (among many others) Satoshi/Gavin/et-al have set a very workable example for the relationship between the 'designers' and the 'user community'.  For this reason it is most likely that it would serve as the model for other such efforts.  Or at least efforts which are likely to go anywhere.

It's not a question of example.  They literally cannot do what a central banker could do.

Not sure where you got the idea that there is anything particularly different in my conception of the various exchange currencies (or even 'bakcoin', for that matter) compared to Bitcoin.

I didn't, but you're views one how a bakcoin supported cryptocurrency should work is inmaterial, what matters in that regard is the views & moral fortitude of the developers of said backed currency.  So it's reasonable for me to assume the lowest common denominator.

And if you intended to have multiple altcoins that were very similar to bitcoin, why not use bitcoin?  If it;s too big to be a peer, why would being a peer in a smaller pond be more secure than being an end user in the bitocoin ocean?

[tvbcof]

It's not a question of example.  They literally cannot do what a central banker could do.

I think that this one is officially beaten to death.  I cannot form a meaningful response to such a deep misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say here.

Not sure where you got the idea that there is anything particularly different in my conception of the various exchange currencies (or even 'bakcoin', for that matter) compared to Bitcoin.

I didn't, but you're views one how a bakcoin supported cryptocurrency should work is inmaterial, what matters in that regard is the views & moral fortitude of the developers of said backed currency.  So it's reasonable for me to assume the lowest common denominator.

I think you are gravely ignorant of what gives opens-source it's strength.  Satoshi could be an Illuminati shape-shifter and Gavin an evil rat bastard and it would make no difference to Bitcoin in the here and now.  The code is available for peer review and analysis, and Bitcoin is interesting enough that it's undergone it's fair share.

Beyond that, a well designed crypto-currency (and a lot of other things) will be pretty hardened against exploitation by 'insiders' by the definition of a good design if nothing else.  Bitcoin is this way, and has set a high bar which will almost have to be followed by similar cryto-currencies which may come after.  If they are going to be successful anyway.  SolidCoin seemed, in the cursory glance I had at it, to have deviated significantly and was quite unsuccessful (by my definition which basically comes down to whether users found it useful or not.)

And if you intended to have multiple altcoins that were very similar to bitcoin, why not use bitcoin?  If it;s too big to be a peer, why would being a peer in a smaller pond be more secure than being an end user in the bitocoin ocean?

'very similar' leave a lot of wiggle-room which is or great interest to users.  Some of these which come to mind include:

 - mining style (mem vs. ops meaning can most users compete with pro miners.)
 - cycle frequency (10 min?  60min? etc.)
 - voting rights (if voting is implemented.)
 - transaction fees.
 - true user-level p2p or no.
 - convertibility (if convertibility to backing store is a design feature...and there exists a backing store.)

etc, etc, etc.  Most or all of these things have trade-offs.  Having multiple experiments along different lines is very conducive to evolution toward design balances which work for the end-user.

Were I to have choices, I believe that I (and most users) would have the ability to:

 - seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms determining if something is a scamcoin or not.

 - choose several, if not many, different crypto-currencies for different uses depending on the needs I happened to have.

edit: fix quotes

[MoonShadow]

It's not a question of example.  They literally cannot do what a central banker could do.

I think that this one is officially beaten to death.  I cannot form a meaningful response to such a deep misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say here.

Granted.  I still have no idea what you've been trying to say.

Not sure where you got the idea that there is anything particularly different in my conception of the various exchange currencies (or even 'bakcoin', for that matter) compared to Bitcoin.

I didn't, but you're views one how a bakcoin supported cryptocurrency should work is inmaterial, what matters in that regard is the views & moral fortitude of the developers of said backed currency.  So it's reasonable for me to assume the lowest common denominator.

I think you are gravely ignorant of what gives opens-source it's strength.  Satoshi could be an Illuminati shape-shifter and Gavin an evil rat bastard and it would make no difference to Bitcoin in the here and now.  The code is available for peer review and analysis, and Bitcoin is interesting enough that it's undergone it's fair share.

Even if Bkcoin were open source, what makes you assume the currencies that use it for backing would be?  What mechanism would exist to ensure that such currencies were up to your standards?  From what I can tell, nothing.  What would happen if some scammer managed to get the necessary Bakcoin to start a currency, bootstrapped a small economy, and then raped it.  What prevents said scammer from absconding with the Bakcoin as well as parsiticly destroy his little fiefdom?  Really, I'm not seing what you're seeing; and since I'm far from ignorant about such matters despite your beliefs, I can hazard a guess that no one but you can see what yor're seeing.

Beyond that, a well designed crypto-currency (and a lot of other things) will be pretty hardened against exploitation by 'insiders' by the definition of a good design if nothing else.  Bitcoin is this way, and has set a high bar which will almost have to be followed by similar cryto-currencies which may come after.  If they are going to be successful anyway.  SolidCoin seemed, in the cursory glance I had at it, to have deviated significantly and was quite unsuccessful (by my definition which basically comes down to whether users found it useful or not.)

Again, what says that such currencies would be well designed, even if they are both open source & designed by the well intended?

And there wre many predictable reasons why Solidcoin failed so badly.  Not the least of which was a lack of transparency.

And if you intended to have multiple altcoins that were very similar to bitcoin, why not use bitcoin?  If it;s too big to be a peer, why would being a peer in a smaller pond be more secure than being an end user in the bitocoin ocean?

'very similar' leave a lot of wiggle-room which is or great interest to users.  Some of these which come to mind include:

 - mining style (mem vs. ops meaning can most users compete with pro miners.)
 - cycle frequency (10 min?  60min? etc.)
 - voting rights (if voting is implemented.)
 - transaction fees.
 - true user-level p2p or no.
 - convertibility (if convertibility to backing store is a design feature...and there exists a backing store.)

etc, etc, etc.  Most or all of these things have trade-offs.  Having multiple experiments along different lines is very conducive to evolution toward design balances which work for the end-user.

Were I to have choices, I believe that I (and most users) would have the ability to:

 - seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms determining if something is a scamcoin or not.

 - choose several, if not many, different crypto-currencies for different uses depending on the needs I happened to have.

edit: fix quotes

Okay, but how would such features be implementd?  And if you don't know how, how would Bakcoin contribute to their success in quantifiable way?  Seriously, I'm not trolling; I really want to know how you think that this could work.  You're website is sparse on the details and thus far so have you been.

[cypherdoc]

tvbcof has an exasperating style of writing that is filled with assumptions and accusations that are backed by inexplicable and obfuscatory reasoning.  believe me, i know.

[tvbcof]

Even if Bkcoin were open source, what makes you assume the currencies that use it for backing would be?

Firstly, open-source is a no-brainer given for a lot of things, and this one in particular.

Various things:

 - 1)  It would provide services which were hardened by the sum total of the crypto-currencies using the solution.  Thus it does not become as much of a concern to have a 'just add water' userbase which can withstand vigorous 51% style attacks.

 - 2)  The reasons for 'investing' in a proposed crypto-currency solution would tend to be less about making the investors rich and thus more about other merits that the solution might promise.  I would anticipate that holders of BKC would have a genuine interest in the science of economies more than simply a desire to enrich themselves (because, as I've documented, BKC is not very good at doing that.)  Thus users can use BKC investor interest as a gauge of the value of the exchange crypto-currency.  As I've documented, 'popularity' of an exchange crypto-currency is what keeps BKC investors from losing their shirts so they have a natural alliance with the users in some ways.

What mechanism would exist to ensure that such currencies were up to your standards?  From what I can tell, nothing.

I've documented that the entire ownerbase of BKC would have the ability to vote about certain things, and one of them was whether to allow a slot for a newly proposed exchange crypto-currency.  Some obvious scamcoin would be unlikely to make the cut.

I stress that it is a group decision of the BKC holders and not the developers.  Just like Bitcoin, there is no 'my standards' so that is a mute question.  This particular thing may not be a majority rules vote.  It is, in fact, a threat to BKC holders to allow a promising new EC-C in.  If that became a problem it might be more of a veto-power mechanism to make this particular decision.

What would happen if some scammer managed to get the necessary Bakcoin to start a currency, bootstrapped a small economy, and then raped it.

Sad day.  Lessons would probably be learned about how to recognize and mitigate against such a thing in the future.

What prevents said scammer from absconding with the Bakcoin as well as parsiticly destroy his little fiefdom?

It would probably be somewhat rare that the entire BKC backing for an EC-C would be from one owner, and users might want to use that as a warning sign of a potential scam.

Really, I'm not seing what you're seeing; and since I'm far from ignorant about such matters despite your beliefs, I can hazard a guess that no one but you can see what yor're seeing.

That well could be.  I am guessing that some people are picking up on some of it though.  In fact, I'd be surprise if nobody had already thought of more and better ways to address some of the issues just based on my descriptions here.

Beyond that, a well designed crypto-currency (and a lot of other things) will be pretty hardened against exploitation by 'insiders' by the definition of a good design if nothing else.  Bitcoin is this way, and has set a high bar which will almost have to be followed by similar cryto-currencies which may come after.  If they are going to be successful anyway.  SolidCoin seemed, in the cursory glance I had at it, to have deviated significantly and was quite unsuccessful (by my definition which basically comes down to whether users found it useful or not.)

Again, what says that such currencies would be well designed, even if they are both open source & designed by the well intended?

If they are well designed and implemented, and those who are qualified to evaluate them say they are, then 'that'.  If they are not, then an analysis will reveal that as well...which is good.  Welcome to open-source my friend.

And there wre many predictable reasons why Solidcoin failed so badly.  Not the least of which was a lack of transparency.

And if you intended to have multiple altcoins that were very similar to bitcoin, why not use bitcoin?  If it;s too big to be a peer, why would being a peer in a smaller pond be more secure than being an end user in the bitocoin ocean?

'very similar' leave a lot of wiggle-room which is or great interest to users.  Some of these which come to mind include:

 - mining style (mem vs. ops meaning can most users compete with pro miners.)
 - cycle frequency (10 min?  60min? etc.)
 - voting rights (if voting is implemented.)
 - transaction fees.
 - true user-level p2p or no.
 - convertibility (if convertibility to backing store is a design feature...and there exists a backing store.)

etc, etc, etc.  Most or all of these things have trade-offs.  Having multiple experiments along different lines is very conducive to evolution toward design balances which work for the end-user.

Were I to have choices, I believe that I (and most users) would have the ability to:

 - seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms determining if something is a scamcoin or not.

 - choose several, if not many, different crypto-currencies for different uses depending on the needs I happened to have.

edit: fix quotes

Okay, but how would such features be implementd?  And if you don't know how, how would Bakcoin contribute to their success in quantifiable way?  Seriously, I'm not trolling; I really want to know how you think that this could work.  You're website is sparse on the details and thus far so have you been.

And I'm doing my best to answer clearly and concisely your specific questions.  Both for you, and for others who may have some general interest or even better, be inspired to dream up other ways of addressing various things about crypto-currency ecosystems.