Topic: My jaw is still on the floor. - page 10. (Read 35717 times)

eddie8:35 PM



I don't think you need provable cost. You need provable scarcity. And if your scheme has a byzantine registry, you're there already - you don't even need a method for generating and allocating random numbers. If there is a registry that establishes ownership of a number by a participant, then there must be a means of identifying participants - and that's all you need. Participants own their own identity.

A participant's ID becomes a coin, which they can trade as usual. Anyone who owns a coin can revoke it and issue new coins as change - the new coins are the old coin with bitstrings appended, such that the appended bitstrings completely partition the subspace. The value of any coin is then simply 1/(2^N) where N is the length of the coin (not counting the original issuer ID). For example, you could split the coin X into the coins X00, X010, X011, X10, X11, creating three +2-bit coins and two +3-bit coins. All this gets tracked in the registry.

This scheme has a (mostly) fixed amount of money that can be split into arbitrarily small denominations (and pooled and tranched into arbitrary denominations of any size). It's only mostly fixed, though - the amount of money is equal to the number of participants, and grows as the participant pool grows. Thus, the basic monetary unit is the lifetime of a person.

A similar scheme could be that each participant can issue new coins whenever they want; each coin would have a serial number, and serial number + issuer would be globally unique. Coins could still be split as before; the splitting digits would be separate from the serial number and issuer identifier. Again, the registry provides proof of scarcity. The value of coins would be measured in participant-seconds: the number of seconds between the coin's registration timestamp and the registration timestamp of the immediately prior registered coin from the same issuer. If I issued one coin a day each would be worth one person-day; if I issued two coins a day each would be worth half a person-day (on average, that is; each would be worth a specific, exact amount depending on exactly when they were issued). Now the monetary base grows both with the population and over time, so that on day 10,001 of the scheme there's .01% monetary growth from the day before. This is similar to your idea of pooling and tranching bitgold into standard-sized time-based chunks. Also, now the basic monetary unit is one day of a person's lifetime (or one second, or one year, etc.) instead of a person's entire lifetime.

With bitgold, the basic monetary unit is the cpu instruction cycle. To prevent ever-cheaper cpu cycles from causing inflation, your pooling idea then bundles cpu cycles into weeks (or days, or seconds), which become the new basic monetary unit. I think the person-second is a better fundamental unit, but if you prefer just plain seconds you can still get them without having to waste cpu cycles solving puzzles: use my person-second scheme, but stipulate that a coin's value is proportionate to the number of registered participants at the time of the coin's timestamp. In other words, my half-a-person-day coin would be worth 1/28th of a day if there were fourteen participants in the registry on the day the coin was registered. Now the monetary base grows strictly by time (adding equal amounts every time period), and the growth is distributed evenly among all participants.

This is one of the most thrilling things (forget the future Bitcoin price!) for me, will he be found or reveal himself? God, I love mysteries.  
  
By the way, hello world! Just to introduce myself: I'm into Bitcoin since 2012, had the joy of being one of the late GPU miners. Never really been active on within the community. Mostly doing User Interface / User Experience works with round about 13-14 years of knowledge. Hope to have a good time here!

So some people organized themselves, launched a testnet, then the live net with a shaky network of CPU miners that dwindled in the summer of 2009. However, in autumn it picked up really fast and people got interested. This forum was created, so let's look at what happened 5 years ago:

UID - alias - rank - activity - details
1 - admin - disabled - 7 - wiped and disabled for security reasons
2 - ###
3 - ###
4 - sirius - staff - 429
5 - ###
6 - ###
7 - ###
8 - ###
9 - ###?
10 - Xunie - full - 132
11 - madhatter - new - 1
12 - nanaimogold - sr - 406
13 - SmokeTooMuch - hero - 862
14 - The Madhatter - hero - 626
15 - ###
16 - xuO4k04c6Ng - new - 1
17 - The Doctor - new - 1

Then 2010 came around. thermos has user number 35, there are still few people registering every month. I registered when the forum was 2 years old, after about 1 year of dicking around because people were trying to mine on Arduinos or something.

As you can see, the first 8 users except sirius were either very naughty (completely wiped before mod rules were made) or requested their accounts to be deleted for various reasons. Unfortunately you can't see these profiles, they are not indexed outside the site due to permission restrictions.

Just a rip on the school of "thought" that says transistors .... recovered alien tech because they came out of nowhere

Not sure what you're saying, but I'm just pointing out that it is not something any idiot could put together given the idea.

Naw, it appeared overnight man, it's proof of ALIENS man, *puff* *pass*

There is nothing obvious about Bitcoin or how to implement it.

the concept of bitcoin and the bitcoin protocol would have not taken that long to build and create

Interesting choice of words.  It could just be that, a choice of words.  But if taken literally, it implies it wasn't always a mystery, at least not to Hal.

I'd be amazed if he didn't know exactly who Satoshi was (or was Satoshi or one of the group himself).

Very insightful TippingPoint.
You may want to look at this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

Very insightful TippingPoint.
You may want to look at this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

^ I hope that he never is linked to as the real Satoshi.

I hope satoshi remains anonymous.