Topic: Bitcoin Plutarchy?!? (Read 1602 times)

Isn't charge-per-entropy another way of saying "trade some money for the inclusion of data based on it's entropy"?

Sure did, thank you.

Do miners feel that this it is desirable that such communication over the blockchain occur?  I don't particularly like it, since I would like Bitcoin to be the closest possible approximation to a transferable scarce commodity, and uses outside of this may be deleterious.  Unfortunately, as most Bitcoiners would probably agree, prohibition is often counterproductive.  In this case, it would be at least quite costly for each node to maintain a subscription to stenography blocking software, and the type of people who implement stenographic protocols will be dodgy people.

It would seem more desirable that this was, in effect, legalised and voluntarily regulated.
Some miners will be comfortable storing and receiving high-entropy transactions or providing access to long histories, while others simply want to process day-to-day Bitcoin purchases.  Some will require that if they are used for data comms they are allowed to delete transactions that are in violation of the data retention laws of their nation, while others will offer encrypted storage accessible over Tor. Is there any way that a supernode can advertise to the client?  If so, a protocol would allow the client to select between miner rulepools optimising for transaction volume, entropy, services offered (1 large pool-based laundering with higher fees is potentially more efficient, with individual higher feed launder specialists), etc.

The incentives facing both miners and Bitcoiners are multifaceted.

This oughta interest you if you haven't seen it already.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8423.0

Thank you.

While this inevitable development is potentially dangerous, it is also potentially extremely useful.  A web of trust built directly on top of the Bitcoin network could be extremely valuable, especially if one is performing a transaction of value significantly less than the value invested in cultivating the Entity.

Interesting idea, but it ain't necessarily plutocracy. Given sufficient motivation, the mass of smalltime bitcoin users can overwhelm the wealthiest individuals if the transaction fee is low enough. And if you truly wanted to see who will put their money where their mouth is, you'll make it cheap if not free, right?



You scare me :/

It does a little, doesn't it?

Especially since it can also be used for trade which I consider immoral.

Bitcoin addresses can be used as chains of identity for a statement (willingness to carry out violence in exchange for Bitcoins being about the only thing I consider an immoral use) and therefor reputation for success, as well as reputation for paying.

Entire protocols for codified human behaviour are going to be pegged to pseudonymous entities moving Bitcoins as proof of identity and writing "end use as identity" bytes when spending them.

On the other hand, manufactures can establish reputations based on data encoded on the block chain, and capital for purchase can be demonstrated.  This could be extremely valuable for just-in-time manufacturing and escrow carried entirely along the block chain.

This is going to be used whenever a Bitcoin identity, whether that be a person, group of opinions, or trading software wishes to signal with its financial reputation.  It is almost the purest expression of humanity.

I really think charge-per-entropy rulesets are a necessity.

It does sound horrible

I've had a horribly interesting idea.

We know we can encode data steganographically, but that it's not nice to do too much.
In order to poll the Bitcoin community, we could use as little as one byte of data to choose between a list of option.  I'm sure more entropy then that would be added for identification of the message, but only messages which paid a minimum miner's fee decided by the polling body would be part of the polling body's analysis.

Each Satoshi moved is considered one vote.  The meaning of the encoded data could be a simple public statement or encrypted hashes of one's answer signed by the public key of the voter.
This would allow an entity to get reactions from the Bitcoin community proportional to the number Bitcoins held by an opinion.

This could be extremely valuable for finding out what Bitcoins would like to be spent on or used for, and participation would almost necessarily be voluntary and non-binding.  The only possible punishment for a dishonest answer (initiating transaction in public and then reneging) is a slight devaluation of your Bitcoins amongst the other large Bitcoin holders.

On the one hand, I don't particularly like steganography in the block chain, but this is such a potentially powerful tool that I think it is going to happen.