needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement.

[Jbar]

Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 18:46:25, Jerome Baum a écrit :

First, I am sorry to not answer before, as I said, I sorely lacking time. But I am glad to find at least a skilled fellow to discuss about the idea and 
especially its technicals issues/solutions.

In fact a fairest alternative to bitcoin is expected by more and more french bloggers.
( I just give a link in english but i may give you a lot of links to french bloggers and articles:
http://owni.fr/2011/03/14/how-french-site-owni-profits-by-giving-away-its-content/).

> 
> Not really a bitcoin fan here, and I think gold is a pretty bad analogy
> that breaks down very soon. How about coins instead? The idea here is that
> coins can be generated without limits (i.e. don't need to be mined --
> assuming no lack of resources that the coins are made of).

True.
 
> This is particularly difficult to resolve. A digital currency should allow
> any two people to trade without having met each other before. Bitcoin
> allows this, while a WoT-based model requires at the very least a chain
> between those people and cooperation along the chain.

True.
(and wotsap is our friend http://www.lysator.liu.se/~jc/wotsap/index.html).

> So, the system doesn't allow new people to come into play after it has been
> started?

False, People may always get it or get out.
The amount of money created periodically depend on it : Universal Dividend (or Monetary Dividend) creation:
    * UD(n+1) = MAX { UD(n) ; Pud*M(n)/N(n) }

	//Where n is the past month. UD(n) is the UD of past month. Pud is the minimal % UD growth as defined in the 4th rule. M(n) is the existing 
monetary mass, and N(n) is the total amount of members. All are values just before calculation of new monthly UD(n+1).// 

> >  If a human in the list don't create its part of money, he is supposed to
> > 
> > be dead and is (until he comes back to life) removed from the given web
> > of trust.
> 
> Don't get this part.
It is just a simple way to manage people getting out of the List.

> >    /B1
> >   
> >   /
> > 
> > A  --B2
> > 
> >   \
> >   
> >    \B3
> >  
> >  Every B networks watch its root network A, use it to make transaction
> > 
> > between them. But network B2 and network A don't care about the money
> > exchanged in network B3.
> 
> So say I am in network B3 and you are in B1, how do I send you money?

Trough network A. 
I see 2 ways to do it :
 1- You entrust your money to a confidence entity is also in network A and propagate transaction to network B1. (first idea, worst one).
 2- Every body (you and I) is also in all parents networks (A) and make transaction in their common parent network. As every body watch what happen in 
their parents networks (until the root), they know that some bills have go out, or go in, their smaller networks. (easiest  to implement).

(About networks, i did think of using xmpp chatrooms, for the beginning, this idea comes from the irc channel which bitcoin software connects).

> 
> For a first implementation you'll have to go with notations if you want to
> use OpenPGP. Otherwise you get compatibility issues etc.

True.
 
> Not sure I get your point here. Are you implying the bitcoin authors are
> scamming people?

I don't think so, (or not more than other traders in the world). I just say they have no interests, economically speaking , to work on a fairest 
alternative.

> How about you draw up a list of requirements that your system is meant to
> solve? Right now I see a complicated model but you haven't established the
> ground rules yet. E.g.:
> 
> § 1. Any entity may enter and leave the network at any time, and not loose
> or gain money by doing so.
> 
> § 2. Any two entities may exchange money with little to no cooperation from
> the network; and there is an appropriate incentive to cooperate as far as
> cooperation is needed.
> 
> § 3. The time required to exchange money must be small; and the fees
> required to exchange money must be minimal.
> 
> § 4. No entity may gain wealth without cooperation from those who in turn
> loose wealth.
> 
> § 5. Transactions should be anonymous with the exception of traffic
> analysis.
> 
> (Input welcome!)
> 
> This is just an example and you'd adjust it to suit your needs, but I think
> it's a good start. You mentioned that you're not interested in § 5, so
> you'd obviously leave that out.
> 
> Once you've defined a specific goal, it will be much easier to verify that
> you're reaching this goal. Otherwise everyone else has to make assumptions
> about what you're trying to achieve. It also hinders promotion: If I can't
> see what features your currency has to offer, I'm not going to pick it over
> bitcoin.

To help us clarifying the ground rule, you may discuss on our mailing list (http://groups.google.com/group/open-udc) or our xmpp chatroom (open-
udc at muc.jappix.com) and write directly in our wiki (http://www.open-udc.org/en/contributing).

The ground rule you write (except  § 5) are already what I have in mind, I'd like to add : 

§ 5 an entity is an human or a group of defined humans (no legal entity).

But the skills needed to write this rules are less rare than our technical skills. :-)

looking forward to read you,

Jean-Jacques.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110528/9f7eb1fa/attachment.pgp>