Topic: BakCoin (was: decline in listening nodes) (Read 2913 times)
One (possibly last) thing I'll say for a while is this:
I never expected (in my thought experiment) that 'bakcoin' would form a dominant body of value for any alternate crypto-currencies. That would be formed by their own merit mainly. Such things would include:
- the strength of the developent community and user base.
- the design and implementation
- other forms of more tangible backing (USD, BTC, Gold, whatever.)
- the market segment they occupy
- and on and on
Further, a good design would either neglect the modest 'support niceties' that Bakcoin might be able to supply (like a secured scratchpad) or at least design such that it is a dispensable item eventually. This would allow them to migrate away from any reliance on 'bakcoin' in the future.
For these reasons, there would be a reasonable expectation that an alternate crypto-currency could retain some or all of it's value even if Bakcoin itself crashed and burnt. Of course Bakcoin would try very hard not to do so.
Ideally 'bakcoin' would serve as a set of 'training wheels' for the most part. It's main goal is to incubate new and better crypto-currency solutions which are providing a variety of options to end users.
At this point, this thread is a waste of time. I wish I could stop getting it to show up in my 'Show new replies to your posts." link.
It's so nice to see so many other valuable contributions like yours showing up and adding to the value :^)Themos would probably consider a well constructed patch to the software he is running.
Never mind. I just noticed that you seem to use posts as free advertising for whatever you think might make you some bucks or whatever. That explains your rather pointless spam. If I cared enough I would validate my hypothesis to see if you ever really post anything of value...but I don't.
Maybe I'll submit a patch to clean up the mess from freeloading captains-of-industry-in-waiting like yourself.
At this point, this thread is a waste of time. I wish I could stop getting it to show up in my 'Show new replies to your posts." link.
It's so nice to see so many other valuable contributions like yours showing up and adding to the value :^)
Themos would probably consider a well constructed patch to the software he is running.
At this point, this thread is a waste of time. I wish I could stop getting it to show up in my 'Show new replies to your posts." link.
perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that tvbcof ...
Perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that ... cyperdoc ...Poor cypherdoc. Just cannot stay away from the sharp end of the golden bull or various other things in the environment. I suggest you don't go hiking where there are poisonous snakes...your nature is not conducive to survival in such conditions.
Legitimate, perhaps. But you've been harping about what you vaguely perceive as flaws in bitcoin, but can't articulate those concerns, including the one that started this thread. Yet you are just as vague about solutions. Don't tell me that an airship is better travel than a cruise ship, when you've never been on an airship and only walked on a cruise ship while docked. Either give me details and credible reasons (i.e. ones that I can't shoot down in the first round, at least) or stop wasting my time.
Very well, we'll continue on than. Regrettably for my employer, you've been robbing him somewhat lately, but that's completely my fault and I can make up for it over time. I'm busy only for a few more weeks then I'll have as much time to direct to whatever interests me.
I actually think I've been doing a much better job than I thought myself capable of of explaining the nuts and bolts of 'bakcoin', and tangentially certain things about open-source and Bitcoin generally that you seem ignorant about. I sense that your failure to pick up on some of them is more a reflection of your own closed-mindeness and dogma than any native inabilities, but the net effect is the same. It's also a bit difficult to know exactly what you consider a 'win' or 'shoot down'. In your mind there seem to be many...which is non-impressive to me, but I'm sure thrills the hell out of a lot of the pom-pom waver types.
But I will persevere if you insist...just for the general betterment of the human condition.
perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that tvbcof is a self described socialist and actually likes Ben Bernanke and his policies. he is depending on Ben to further the value of his gold holdings.
...and to induce large populations to transition into Bitcoin.and no, the gold spike didn't hurt me as i had a large GDXJ position in place as a hedge.
Of course ;^)Perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that the only thing standing between our poor friend cyperdoc and indigence is 'time'. Sadly he'll probably be dragging a lot of his subscribers down with him.
Yet another veiled accusation and more FUD. Grow up.
MS:
I'm about ready to wrap this up, and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. You are completely correct that 'bakcoin' is nowhere near ready for presentation and I was not initially planning to do so. I have very much appreciated your critiques and questions and would be happy to discuss such things further with anyone who has an interest.
Just one more thing, however, since it is quite key:
Sad day. Lessons would probably be learned about how to recognize and mitigate against such a thing in the future.
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.
I get the feeling that you really haven't thought these issues through.
There are a zillion - handful of issues that I've not thought through. To my amazement, most of the things you have asked about specifically are among the 'handful', including the above.
I'm about ready to wrap this up, and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. You are completely correct that 'bakcoin' is nowhere near ready for presentation and I was not initially planning to do so. I have very much appreciated your critiques and questions and would be happy to discuss such things further with anyone who has an interest.
Just one more thing, however, since it is quite key:
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.
I get the feeling that you really haven't thought these issues through.
There are a zillion - handful of issues that I've not thought through. To my amazement, most of the things you have asked about specifically are among the 'handful', including the above.
You are easily amazed.
Quote
My answers seem nonchalant. This is no accident and is utterly key conceptually.
I guess bitcoin doesn't quite 'feel' right to you, so you 'sense' that you can come up with something better, but simply don't know how.
Concerning that "don't know how" part, have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that what you are considering actually isn't possible, even if you can imagine it is?
Quote
This contrasts with our mainstream dept-based fiat monetary systems which are what I call 'monolithic' insofar as they are prone to catastrophic failure of one necessary aspect of their function is destroyed. I have a legitimate and honest concern that Bitcoin could end up with a similar weakness. My concern may or may not be valid, and even if it is, the weakness may or may not be realized. Only time will tell.
Legitimate, perhaps. But you've been harping about what you vaguely perceive as flaws in bitcoin, but can't articulate those concerns, including the one that started this thread. Yet you are just as vague about solutions. Don't tell me that an airship is better travel than a cruise ship, when you've never been on an airship and only walked on a cruise ship while docked. Either give me details and credible reasons (i.e. ones that I can't shoot down in the first round, at least) or stop wasting my time.
Quote
Interesting. How, exactly, would this vote occur? How would this prevent an unwanted currency from foundation; via some yet undefined algo or would there need to be a human authority to make such a decision? If the latter, who watches the watchers?
I envision that the development/management team would be responsible for including 'ballot questions'. People who control BKC value would 'vote' in a similar way to performing any other type of transaction. Just like the real world, lotsa people probably would not care about lotsa things enough to bother to vote at all.
How do you propose to enforce your vision?
Do you really not see what I'm doing here?
I sense that you are significantly challenged and are actually having to stretch a little bit to remain comfortably inside your intellectual shell. But you are laudably and bravely putting in some effort and challenging me to dredge back and defend some of my thoughts on these matters. And I find that enjoyable.
I sense that you didn't understand that question either, but pretty good dodge there.
MS:
I'm about ready to wrap this up, and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. You are completely correct that 'bakcoin' is nowhere near ready for presentation and I was not initially planning to do so. I have very much appreciated your critiques and questions and would be happy to discuss such things further with anyone who has an interest.
Just one more thing, however, since it is quite key:
Sad day. Lessons would probably be learned about how to recognize and mitigate against such a thing in the future.
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.
I get the feeling that you really haven't thought these issues through.
There are a zillion - handful of issues that I've not thought through. To my amazement, most of the things you have asked about specifically are among the 'handful', including the above.
My answers seem nonchalant. This is no accident and is utterly key conceptually.
People get ripped off using USD, Bitcoin, and I have every expectation that they would using a 'bakcoin' based crypto-currency. I'm not trying to fight that battle since it is not winnable. I would only hope that 'bakcoin' (or such solution) could provide some help against abuse of many different forms.
The key aspect here would be that 'bakcoin' itself remains very simple and thus flexible and robust.
It's up to the various exchange currencies live or die on their own merits, but their trajectory and details are of no consequence to the other exchange crypto-currencies (aside form healthy competition to attract users.)
This contrasts with our mainstream dept-based fiat monetary systems which are what I call 'monolithic' insofar as they are prone to catastrophic failure of one necessary aspect of their function is destroyed. I have a legitimate and honest concern that Bitcoin could end up with a similar weakness. My concern may or may not be valid, and even if it is, the weakness may or may not be realized. Only time will tell.
I'm about ready to wrap this up, and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. You are completely correct that 'bakcoin' is nowhere near ready for presentation and I was not initially planning to do so. I have very much appreciated your critiques and questions and would be happy to discuss such things further with anyone who has an interest.
Just one more thing, however, since it is quite key:
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.
I get the feeling that you really haven't thought these issues through.
There are a zillion - handful of issues that I've not thought through. To my amazement, most of the things you have asked about specifically are among the 'handful', including the above.
My answers seem nonchalant. This is no accident and is utterly key conceptually.
People get ripped off using USD, Bitcoin, and I have every expectation that they would using a 'bakcoin' based crypto-currency. I'm not trying to fight that battle since it is not winnable. I would only hope that 'bakcoin' (or such solution) could provide some help against abuse of many different forms.
The key aspect here would be that 'bakcoin' itself remains very simple and thus flexible and robust.
It's up to the various exchange currencies live or die on their own merits, but their trajectory and details are of no consequence to the other exchange crypto-currencies (aside form healthy competition to attract users.)
This contrasts with our mainstream dept-based fiat monetary systems which are what I call 'monolithic' insofar as they are prone to catastrophic failure of one necessary aspect of their function is destroyed. I have a legitimate and honest concern that Bitcoin could end up with a similar weakness. My concern may or may not be valid, and even if it is, the weakness may or may not be realized. Only time will tell.
perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that tvbcof is a self described socialist and actually likes Ben Bernanke and his policies. he is depending on Ben to further the value of his gold holdings.
...and to induce large populations to transition into Bitcoin.and no, the gold spike didn't hurt me as i had a large GDXJ position in place as a hedge.
Of course ;^)Perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that the only thing standing between our poor friend cyperdoc and indigence is 'time'. Sadly he'll probably be dragging a lot of his subscribers down with him.
perhaps it might help this discussion knowing that tvbcof is a self described socialist and actually likes Ben Bernanke and his policies. he is depending on Ben to further the value of his gold holdings.
and no, the gold spike didn't hurt me as i had a large GDXJ position in place as a hedge.
and no, the gold spike didn't hurt me as i had a large GDXJ position in place as a hedge.
Would you be adverse to the existence of any other crypto-currency solution besides Bitcoin?
No, but I am skeptical of such attempts. I've seen quite a few come and go, and only those that aim to fill a different niche than Bitcoin itself remain, such as Namecoin.Quote
If so, what would make it palatable?
Satoshi built this protocol pretty much all by himself; Gavin & the other current developers are great people, but they didn't have the vision to do this. It would go a long way towards "making things more palatable" if 1) you stopped trolling about bitcoin until you have a real solution or 2) developed that real solution. Keep in mind that this forum tolerates discussions about alt-coins in the right places, but if you are just going to enter in our house as a guest and then crap on the kitchen table then you are going to get some push-back. As far as I'm concerned, I've not been unfair in my critiques and concerns about Bitcoin. I have been harsh and smart-ass with them from time to time. This is in part because I rather enjoy some push-back, and because I feel that it helps make points that stick. If Bitcoin and it's community is to weak to deal with such a thing, then there is less hope than I imagined.
I do find it somewhat amusing that the very people who crow endlessly about 'free markets' seem to react to any non-Bitcoin crypto-currency as a snail reacts to salt.
What about bitcoin itself is unsatisfactory to this end?
In fact, I spent a lot of energy trying to figure out how Bitcoin could serve this function. That was my natural first instinct. Eventually I concluded that Bitcoin has some bloat problems that are not practical to address (for _this_ purpose) and also that designing aspects of a purpose-oriented backing store were such a big win that that made the most sense.
Why do you assume that those whom would develop a currency off of bakcoin would view open source as a "no brainer"? What if Micro$oft or Apple decided to do it, or Facebook? What logic would lead you to conclude that an open source solution would be in their best interests?
They are certainly welcome to try. I suspect they would not be trusted enough to be successful. Certainly they would not be by me.
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.
Interesting. How, exactly, would this vote occur? How would this prevent an unwanted currency from foundation; via some yet undefined algo or would there need to be a human authority to make such a decision? If the latter, who watches the watchers?
I envision that the development/management team would be responsible for including 'ballot questions'. People who control BKC value would 'vote' in a similar way to performing any other type of transaction. Just like the real world, lotsa people probably would not care about lotsa things enough to bother to vote at all.
As for who watches the watchers, it's just like any other open-source project. If the development team is to corrupt or out-of-sync with the users, some other group will be successful in creating a fork. So, the users watch the watchers. Or are the watchers I guess.
Quote
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.
Who holds the veto power?
That's an implementation detail. In this context, if the userbase itself became so 'corrupt' that they were interfering with the goals of the project, a decision to allow or not allow a seemingly legitimate new exchange crypto-currency a slot might be made on the basis of enough users using enough of their limited supply of vetos. I mention this just as an illustration of how a degree of flexibility and design can be used to address various kinds of unexpected issues.
Do you really not see what I'm doing here?
I sense that you are significantly challenged and are actually having to stretch a little bit to remain comfortably inside your intellectual shell. But you are laudably and bravely putting in some effort and challenging me to dredge back and defend some of my thoughts on these matters. And I find that enjoyable.
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.Actually, perhaps it would help to understand one another's thought patterns and thus make explaining things a bit easier to switch things around for a change:
-----
Would you be adverse to the existence of any other crypto-currency solution besides Bitcoin?
No, but I am skeptical of such attempts. I've seen quite a few come and go, and only those that aim to fill a different niche than Bitcoin itself remain, such as Namecoin.
Quote
If so, what would make it palatable?
Satoshi built this protocol pretty much all by himself; Gavin & the other current developers are great people, but they didn't have the vision to do this. It would go a long way towards "making things more palatable" if 1) you stopped trolling about bitcoin until you have a real solution or 2) developed that real solution. Keep in mind that this forum tolerates discussions about alt-coins in the right places, but if you are just going to enter in our house as a guest and then crap on the kitchen table then you are going to get some push-back.
Please can the Bakcoin bullshit be split off and moved to a new thread inside "Alternative Cryptocurrencies", thanks.
No. There was a logical procession of events that led this conversation here. Splitting it would make no sense to the follow-up reader. I think this side-topic is about dead anyway.
Please can the Bakcoin bullshit be split off and moved to a new thread inside "Alternative Cryptocurrencies", thanks.
I had always planned to do that if/when the material was ready...and if the forum was still a worthwhile venue for presentation at that time. As it happened, I was challenged about whether I had thought about any solutions to the things about Bitcoin that I consider weaknesses. And the conversation evolved from there.
Just out of curiosity... Threads drift off-topic to a vastly larger degree than this one has (and it's arguable that this one actually has.) Lots of people just ignore conversations which don't really interest them. This one seems to have really gotten under your skin. Why do you suppose that is?
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 about bitcoin itself is unsatisfactory to this end? Why do you assume that those whom would develop a currency off of bakcoin would view open source as a "no brainer"? What if Micro$oft or Apple decided to do it, or Facebook? What logic would lead you to conclude that an open source solution would be in their best interests?
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.
Interesting. How, exactly, would this vote occur? How would this prevent an unwanted currency from foundation; via some yet undefined algo or would there need to be a human authority to make such a decision? If the latter, who watches the watchers?
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.
I get the feeling that you really haven't thought these issues through.
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.
Oh, I've thought of better ways to do what you appear to want to do, but I can conceive of none that have any particular advantage over bitcoin as it exists.
Quote
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.
Who is qualified to make that determination?
Do you really not see what I'm doing here?