needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement.

[Jerome Baum]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 13:04, Jbar <jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 18:46:25, Jerome Baum a écrit :
>> 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 what happens if I don't have an established WoT? Does this currency
just not work for me? If you want to promote OpenPGP, then it's
probably best to promote it to people who aren't using it yet -- as
opposed to people who are already using it and have an established
WoT.

>> 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).

Yeah, don't really like this either.

>  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).

Then why have segments in the first place?

>> 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.

I have no interests, economically speaking, of writing this email.
It's not like I'm going to make money from this, not even indirectly.
People have other interests than economic ones -- say you want to
promote digital currencies, or you are genuinely interested in the
challenge.

>> 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.

> 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).

Feel free to cross-post, but keep me in CC as I am not subscribed.

> 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).

Why?

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

Not too sure about this one. Yes, anyone can come up with some
"rules", but good ground rules are a different thing entirely. Every
rule will have an impact on the success of the currency -- such as
your § 6 above. (sorry for the rename)

I've also taken a look at http://www.open-udc.org/en/money_rules and
frankly it feels like I was hit by a bus: "A new Open-UDC member must
be approuved by 2/3 or more of all members" is quite a condition. Does
this mean I cannot trade the currency if I don't have prior approval
of a 2/3 majority of the existing traders? Two options:

1. Yes it does. Thank you, but I'm looking elsewhere.

2. No it doesn't. Then your rules aren't easy enough to understand.
I'm looking elsewhere.

-- 
Jerome Baum
tel +49-1578-8434336
email jerome at jeromebaum.com
--
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA