Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: GnuPG: devel

needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement.

 

 

GnuPG devel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail

May 25, 2011, 10:21 AM

Post #1 of 14 (1034 views)
Permalink
needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement.

Hi, i am working on a replacement for bitcoin using OpenPGP.

But to do so properly I would like to add some things in the RFC 4880.

The minimum needed is to add a flag in the section 5.2.3.1. :

> 5.2.3.1. Signature Subpacket Specification
> (...)
> The value of the subpacket type octet may be:
> (...)
> 33 = Recipient

And so :

> 5.2.3.27. Recipient
>
> (8-octet Key ID)
>
> The OpenPGP Key ID of the recipient of the signature.
>
> This subpacket may be used for signing chain, and so in the hashed
> subpacket data set. This subpacket may be used many times if there
> are different recipients.


I have compiled the git master branch of GnuPG and began studying the source. But I sorely lacking time to produce a patch for making a version (a git branch ?) of gpg with this feature.

So if I want somebody else to do it, I should explain what is the project, its aim and its principles.

Its aim is to do better than bitcoin.

How to ?
On a moral plan by applying a social credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) instead of a system were "the first are the best served"
Rules of money creation are not so complicated but implies some economical reflexions which does need not our computing skills.

On a technical plan (that is the point were I require you attention, and I'd like some guru to get involved), the principles are :
- Each human is certified by the OpenPGP web of trust of the previous humans (on the OpenPGP uid with the udid1 field, unique and minimum required to make the link with a Civil Status).
- A transaction is to sign the signature chain associated to units of currency (udc-bills).
- All currency units are stored on the network.

The principles are simple but imply some questions/problem wich i like to discuss (And it's hard to find skilled fellow for that).

Our website is a wiki : http://www.open-udc.org
Our mailing list : open-udc [at] googlegroups
(our git is almost empty).

--
Jean-Jacques B.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.22 KB)


jerome at jeromebaum

May 25, 2011, 10:30 AM

Post #2 of 14 (1011 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 19:21, Jean-Jacques Brucker <
jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> Hi, i am working on a replacement for bitcoin using OpenPGP.
>

Why?

--
Jerome Baum

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


jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail

May 25, 2011, 11:52 AM

Post #3 of 14 (1017 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

Le mercredi 25 mai 2011 19:30:15, Jerome Baum a crit :
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 19:21, Jean-Jacques Brucker <
>
> jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Hi, i am working on a replacement for bitcoin using OpenPGP.
>
> Why?

Even if bitcoin is an improvement comparing to the previous monetary systems,
it still has, economically and socially speaking, many defects.

There are enough rooms to speak about them in an other place (forums, blogs ...).

But bitcoin has also technicals defects, the two most important are :

- a amount of bitcoin is only stored by only one peer at a time t, which mean that bitcoins may easily disapper and that is what already occurs (I
did personally lost a few amount of btc, and i had see in the forum that I am not alone).

- Transaction are very very slow (I don't have try to pay taxes to the people "with the biggest" CPU power), and this is not a surprise why so : first
the proof of work, second there is in fact a third-party for bitcoins : it is the entire network.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


jerome at jeromebaum

May 25, 2011, 12:06 PM

Post #4 of 14 (1009 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 20:52, Jbar <jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:

> Le mercredi 25 mai 2011 19:30:15, Jerome Baum a écrit :
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 19:21, Jean-Jacques Brucker <
> >
> > jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:
> > > Hi, i am working on a replacement for bitcoin using OpenPGP.
> >
> > Why?
>



> But bitcoin has also technicals defects, the two most important are :
>
> - a amount of bitcoin is only stored by only one peer at a time t, which
> mean that bitcoins may easily disapper and that is what already occurs (I
> did personally lost a few amount of btc, and i had see in the forum that I
> am not alone).
>

Not sure I see this point. If you loose access to your private key, you
always loose your digital money. That's a fact of life, and the reason we do
backups.


> - Transaction are very very slow (I don't have try to pay taxes to the
> people "with the biggest" CPU power), and this is not a surprise why so :
> first
> the proof of work, second there is in fact a third-party for bitcoins :
> it is the entire network.
>

The proof of work is an essential economic measure in the bitcoin network.
How would your proposed system work without a proof of work? Why would
anyone join in?

On the third-party, there needs to be a third-party for a digital currency
to operate. Otherwise I can use one coin multiple times. If that third-party
is the whole network (i.e. "the public"), then that's as good as it gets --
no single point of failure or entity w/ too much power.

I think the whole bitcoin story is questionable enough. I'm not saying
bitcoin can't be successful, but you should be wary and make a careful
decision. Everyone has different opinions about it. Adding "yet another
system" on top of that won't help.

--
Jerome Baum

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


jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail

May 25, 2011, 3:00 PM

Post #5 of 14 (1007 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

> > But bitcoin has also technicals defects, the two most important are :
> > - a amount of bitcoin is only stored by only one peer at a time t, which
> >
> > mean that bitcoins may easily disapper and that is what already occurs
> > (I did personally lost a few amount of btc, and i had see in the forum
> > that I am not alone).
>
> Not sure I see this point. If you loose access to your private key, you
> always loose your digital money. That's a fact of life, and the reason we
> do backups.

I have make backups of the private part of my OpenPGP certificate once. With bitcoin u should make backups after each transaction...

> > - Transaction are very very slow (I don't have try to pay taxes to the
> >
> > people "with the biggest" CPU power), and this is not a surprise why so :
> > first
> > the proof of work, second there is in fact a third-party for bitcoins :
> > it is the entire network.
>
> The proof of work is an essential economic measure in the bitcoin network.
> How would your proposed system work without a proof of work? Why would
> anyone join in?

We will use OpenPGP web of trust and it will be human-based instead of CPU-based.
People who think than society in based on humans more than on institutions or CPU should join in.

> On the third-party, there needs to be a third-party for a digital currency
> to operate. Otherwise I can use one coin multiple times. If that
> third-party is the whole network (i.e. "the public"), then that's as good
> as it gets -- no single point of failure or entity w/ too much power.

Of course we need no single point of failure or entity with too much power, but there is a more efficient alternative than a big single network :
A network of networks (of networks of networks...) which mean a tree of network, to be compared with the DNS system tree (and as fast as n^n grow , we
don't need a deep tree).

> I think the whole bitcoin story is questionable enough. I'm not saying
> bitcoin can't be successful, but you should be wary and make a careful
> decision. Everyone has different opinions about it. Adding "yet another
> system" on top of that won't help.

I just want that gnupg manage a new subpacket type octet (cf the section 5.2.3.1. of the RFC 4880) needed for the signing chain feature :

"The value of the subpacket type octet may be:
(...)
33 = Recipient
(...)
5.2.3.27. Recipient

(8-octet Key ID)

The OpenPGP Key ID of the recipient of the signature.

This subpacket may be used for signing chain, and so in the hashed
subpacket data set. This subpacket may be used many times if there
are different recipients.
"
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


dshaw at jabberwocky

May 25, 2011, 3:17 PM

Post #6 of 14 (1007 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On May 25, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Jbar wrote:

>> I think the whole bitcoin story is questionable enough. I'm not saying
>> bitcoin can't be successful, but you should be wary and make a careful
>> decision. Everyone has different opinions about it. Adding "yet another
>> system" on top of that won't help.
>
> I just want that gnupg manage a new subpacket type octet (cf the section 5.2.3.1. of the RFC 4880) needed for the signing chain feature :
>
> "The value of the subpacket type octet may be:
> (...)
> 33 = Recipient

Without going into the details of bitcoin or whether it is a good system or not, and speaking strictly from the OpenPGP protocol perspective, you don't need a new subpacket to get what you want. OpenPGP has a generic key=value notation subpacket (number 20), already supported by GnuPG, which is ideal for what you are trying to do. Just use a notation of something like bitcoin [at] your-domain=XXX.

David


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel


jerome at jeromebaum

May 26, 2011, 4:52 AM

Post #7 of 14 (1007 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 00:00, Jbar <jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> > > But bitcoin has also technicals defects, the two most important are :
> > > - a amount of bitcoin is only stored by only one peer at a time t,
> which
> > >
> > > mean that bitcoins may easily disapper and that is what already occurs
> > > (I did personally lost a few amount of btc, and i had see in the forum
> > > that I am not alone).
> >
> > Not sure I see this point. If you loose access to your private key, you
> > always loose your digital money. That's a fact of life, and the reason we
> > do backups.
>
> I have make backups of the private part of my OpenPGP certificate once.
> With bitcoin u should make backups after each transaction...
>

Isn't this simply because the bitcoin client creates multiple keys and will
create new ones for a transaction? Two options:

1. Give up your anonymity and use the same key everywhere. Requires a small
change to bitcoin client.

2. Keep your anonymity. Use lots of OpenPGP keys that you need to backup
regularly.

i.e. If you want the anonymity, you still need to make the backups. If you
don't want the anonymity, you're not really creating a bitcoin alternative.

> > - Transaction are very very slow (I don't have try to pay taxes to the
> > >
> > > people "with the biggest" CPU power), and this is not a surprise why so
> :
> > > first
> > > the proof of work, second there is in fact a third-party for bitcoins
> :
> > > it is the entire network.
> >
> > The proof of work is an essential economic measure in the bitcoin
> network.
> > How would your proposed system work without a proof of work? Why would
> > anyone join in?
>
> We will use OpenPGP web of trust and it will be human-based instead of
> CPU-based.
> People who think than society in based on humans more than on institutions
> or CPU should join in.
>

"How would your proposed system work without a proof of work?"

You haven't explained how the currency works. Where do the initial "coins"
come from? How are they generated?

> On the third-party, there needs to be a third-party for a digital currency
> > to operate. Otherwise I can use one coin multiple times. If that
> > third-party is the whole network (i.e. "the public"), then that's as good
> > as it gets -- no single point of failure or entity w/ too much power.
>
> Of course we need no single point of failure or entity with too much power,
> but there is a more efficient alternative than a big single network :
> A network of networks (of networks of networks...) which mean a tree of
> network, to be compared with the DNS system tree (and as fast as n^n grow ,
> we
> don't need a deep tree).
>

If we have a network of networks, I can use the same coin twice -- once in
network A, once in network B. Or, I cannot use the coin from one network in
another. Or, I need a third-party.

A more in-depth description of your proposed system would help, before
making requests to change OpenPGP. (As David points out, this isn't even
necessary -- nonetheless, you'll probably save yourself lots of time if you
just write up a document about this and have others review it, as opposed to
"just going ahead".)

> I think the whole bitcoin story is questionable enough. I'm not saying
> > bitcoin can't be successful, but you should be wary and make a careful
> > decision. Everyone has different opinions about it. Adding "yet another
> > system" on top of that won't help.
>
> I just want that gnupg manage a new subpacket type octet ...


This isn't what I meant with "yet another system". "Yet another system [like
bitcoin]" is "yet another digital currency system", i.e. "yet another choice
the user has to make", analogous to "yet another operation system" or "yet
another Linux distribution". Not that the ability to choose isn't a good
thing. But the shear amount of distributions has been a problem for Linux's
market adoption in the past. This has improved as a number of distros have
emerged as "significant", but the point remains valid -- don't add a system
if you're only making one small change. Document how your system will work,
which security features it addresses and how, and share this document with
others to get some review. Especially share it with the bitcoin authors!

--
Jerome Baum

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


jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail

May 26, 2011, 8:41 AM

Post #8 of 14 (1009 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

--
Jean-Jacques B.


> Isn't this simply because the bitcoin client creates multiple keys and will
> create new ones for a transaction? Two options:
>
> 1. Give up your anonymity and use the same key everywhere. Requires a small
> change to bitcoin client.
>
> 2. Keep your anonymity. Use lots of OpenPGP keys that you need to backup
> regularly.
>
> i.e. If you want the anonymity, you still need to make the backups. If you
> don't want the anonymity, you're not really creating a bitcoin alternative.

I don't want anonymity but i want to use (and so to promote) OpenPGP.

>
> "How would your proposed system work without a proof of work?"
>
> You haven't explained how the currency works. Where do the initial "coins"
> come from? How are they generated?

That the main point were we need a bitcoin alternative. Bitcoin don't care about humans, and lacks fairness.

Imagine a world with gold mines (I know bitcoin fan like gold) were the mining plan is well know and were the extraction cost nothing and is distributed to each living human (regardless its age, sex, etc...) of this world.

That looks like how the money can be generated :

Each humans validated by a given OpenPGP web of trust may generate periodically its part of a new monetary mass which is created by the rule defined by the Relative Theory of Money (may be adjusted by the vote of the human in the given OpenPGP web of trust) http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2010/11/theorie-relative-de-la-monnaie-10.html, cf 5th rule of http://www.open-udc.org/en/money_rules (I don't necessary agree with other rules in this page, but a community have to accept common rules, they may be as minimal and democratic as possible, but still remain).

The list of humans (OpenPGP KeyID) why satisfy a given web of trust (which web of trust ? of course there is here a problem of entity with too much power to resolve) is publish before a set of money is created. And so is the amount of money that each human may create in this set.

example : for the set number nt, there is nh humans in the list, each human can create 2 bills of value 50 and 4 bills of value 10.
The first person in the list may use new bills of value 50 numbered 0 to 1 in this set, and new bills of value 10 numbered 0 to 3 in this set, etc ...

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.

> If we have a network of networks, I can use the same coin twice -- once in
> network A, once in network B. Or, I cannot use the coin from one network in
> another. Or, I need a third-party.

Not if networks are prioritized in a tree structure :
/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.

> A more in-depth description of your proposed system would help, before
> making requests to change OpenPGP. (As David points out, this isn't even
> necessary -- nonetheless, you'll probably save yourself lots of time if you
> just write up a document about this and have others review it, as opposed to
> "just going ahead".)

Indeed David solution is sufficient for the needs. I did think of using the Notation data too, but I did forgot since, (Thanks David to remind me it :-) ) the reason is that it seems dirty to me :

I hope I am not alone which want to use OpenPGP for signing chain.

> This isn't what I meant with "yet another system". "Yet another system [like
> bitcoin]" is "yet another digital currency system", i.e. "yet another choice
> the user has to make", analogous to "yet another operation system" or "yet
> another Linux distribution". Not that the ability to choose isn't a good
> thing. But the shear amount of distributions has been a problem for Linux's
> market adoption in the past. This has improved as a number of distros have
> emerged as "significant", but the point remains valid -- don't add a system
> if you're only making one small change. Document how your system will work,
> which security features it addresses and how, and share this document with
> others to get some review. Especially share it with the bitcoin authors!
>

As a bitcoin is now exchanged for 8 $ (https://mtgox.com/trade/history), and the bitcoin authors are the best served in bitcoin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time.png), I am not sure they would like to work for a human-based alternative before selling their bitcoins at a highest price.

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel


jerome at jeromebaum

May 26, 2011, 9:46 AM

Post #9 of 14 (1006 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 17:41, Jean-Jacques Brucker <
jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:

> >

> "How would your proposed system work without a proof of work?"
> >
> > You haven't explained how the currency works. Where do the initial
> "coins"
> > come from? How are they generated?
>
> That the main point were we need a bitcoin alternative. Bitcoin don't care
> about humans, and lacks fairness.
>
> Imagine a world with gold mines (I know bitcoin fan like gold)


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).


> Each humans validated by a given OpenPGP web of trust may generate
> periodically its part of a new monetary mass which is created by the rule
> defined by the Relative Theory of Money (may be adjusted by the vote of the
> human in the given OpenPGP web of trust)
> http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2010/11/theorie-relative-de-la-monnaie-10.html,
> cf 5th rule of http://www.open-udc.org/en/money_rules (I don't necessary
> agree with other rules in this page, but a community have to accept common
> rules, they may be as minimal and democratic as possible, but still remain).
>
> The list of humans (OpenPGP KeyID) why satisfy a given web of trust (which
> web of trust ? of course there is here a problem of entity with too much
> power to resolve) is publish before a set of money is created. And so is the
> amount of money that each human may create in this set.
>

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.


> example : for the set number nt, there is nh humans in the list, each human
> can create 2 bills of value 50 and 4 bills of value 10.
> The first person in the list may use new bills of value 50 numbered 0 to 1
> in this set, and new bills of value 10 numbered 0 to 3 in this set, etc ...
>

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


> 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.


> > If we have a network of networks, I can use the same coin twice -- once
> in
> > network A, once in network B. Or, I cannot use the coin from one network
> in
> > another. Or, I need a third-party.
>
> Not if networks are prioritized in a tree structure :
> /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?


> > A more in-depth description of your proposed system would help, before
> > making requests to change OpenPGP. (As David points out, this isn't even
> > necessary -- nonetheless, you'll probably save yourself lots of time if
> you
> > just write up a document about this and have others review it, as opposed
> to
> > "just going ahead".)
>
> Indeed David solution is sufficient for the needs. I did think of using the
> Notation data too, but I did forgot since, (Thanks David to remind me it :-)
> ) the reason is that it seems dirty to me :
>
> I hope I am not alone which want to use OpenPGP for signing chain.
>

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


> > This isn't what I meant with "yet another system". "Yet another system
> [like
> > bitcoin]" is "yet another digital currency system", i.e. "yet another
> choice
> > the user has to make", analogous to "yet another operation system" or
> "yet
> > another Linux distribution". Not that the ability to choose isn't a good
> > thing. But the shear amount of distributions has been a problem for
> Linux's
> > market adoption in the past. This has improved as a number of distros
> have
> > emerged as "significant", but the point remains valid -- don't add a
> system
> > if you're only making one small change. Document how your system will
> work,
> > which security features it addresses and how, and share this document
> with
> > others to get some review. Especially share it with the bitcoin authors!
> >
>
> As a bitcoin is now exchanged for 8 $ (https://mtgox.com/trade/history),
> and the bitcoin authors are the best served in bitcoin (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time.png), I am not
> sure they would like to work for a human-based alternative before selling
> their bitcoins at a highest price.
>

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

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.

--
Jerome Baum

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


jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail

May 28, 2011, 4:04 AM

Post #10 of 14 (1003 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

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

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) 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.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


jerome at jeromebaum

May 30, 2011, 1:54 AM

Post #11 of 14 (994 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 13:04, Jbar <jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> 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) 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
--
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel


jeanjacquesbrucker at gmail

May 31, 2011, 3:44 AM

Post #12 of 14 (987 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

>
> 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.

As it is WoT-based, a given currency can only be exchanged in only one WoT.

Building a WoT is so the mandatory first step.

The aim of the project is to define a standard, then you can build your own
currency in your own WoT. Finally i would prefer to be in the same WoT as you
to use also the same currency.

About WoT, I will know make key-signing parties to EnlArge my WoT.
(There will be one in Strasbourg at the beginning of July : http://2011.rmll.info).

But actually OpenPGP WoT doesn't grant individual uniqueness, and that is something
mandatory to apply a fairest monetary dividend. That is why I think everybody which
want to use such WoT-based currency, should rebuild a WoT in accordance to this requirement.

https://github.com/jbar/open-udc/blob/master/docs/Authentication_Mechanisms.draft.txt

> > 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?

For the performances : to not overload the first place with local trades.

> 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.

Both of them.

If u want a short retrospection about my motivation : when i was young and discovered GNU/Linux
I wanted to live from free software activities in a nice place not too crowded. At that time,
some people around the free software movement (a bit sociologists or anthropologists), watching
us "working" and building amazing things without expecting directly money, did ask the question
"how to make the baker get in ?" (In France bakers are very important).

Since I left the nice place for a big city, and began working for big companies which prefers to
retain "property" of their work. But this question and the will to go back living in a place
where there are mainly farmers and bakers still haunted me.

"Today, with all the technical progress made, why don't we still live in an age of plenty ?"
("why do I work for things that I dislike, and lack of time for things I like and that may
be, I think, much more useful for the society ?")

Then I studied the creation of money, the universal dividend, and the money-as-a-debt... and
"I saw a light" ;-)

I want to promote a universal monetary dividend currency ; and digital for best efficiency.
There is then a genuine challenge to resolve.

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

To keep things simple.

> > 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.
>
I am not agree with that rule too, but you can discuss it with the one who
wrote it (and I will be glad if you convince him to erase it).

By the way, such kind of rules is not in the technical heart of a WoT-based
solution which I try to define (and need help for that).

--
Jean-Jacques B.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.22 KB)


jerome at jeromebaum

May 31, 2011, 10:32 AM

Post #13 of 14 (985 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:44, Jean-Jacques Brucker
<jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> As it is WoT-based, a given currency can only be exchanged in only one WoT.
>
> Building a WoT is so the mandatory first step.

Point still applies.

>> 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.
>
> Both of them.
>
> If u want a short retrospection about my motivation

Sorry for the subtlety, I was pointing out the fact that the Bitcoin
creators needn't have economic interests in helping you, and still may
be happy to do so. You should still definitely get in touch with them
if you want to create an improvement over Bitcoin.

>> > § 5 an entity is an human or a group of defined humans (no legal entity).
>>
>> Why?
>
> To keep things simple.

Why is this simpler? How is any market going to spawn with your new
digital currency if businesses are prohibited from trading there? Why
make a restriction that isn't strictly related to the technical and
economical model you are designing?

>> 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:

> By the way, such kind of rules is not in the technical heart of a WoT-based
> solution which I try to define (and need help for that).

Exactly my point when it comes to § 6.

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

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel


squalyl at gmail

Jun 20, 2011, 6:30 AM

Post #14 of 14 (879 views)
Permalink
Re: needs in OpenPGP to use it for a bitcoin replacement. [In reply to]

just to add oil in the fire...

http://leanback.eu/bitcoin/plots/20110619195756-mtgox.png

source: Le Monde (in french):
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/06/20/la-monnaie-virtuelle-bitcoin-en-crise_1538194_651865.html

bitcoin? do not want!

Sebastien

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jerome Baum <jerome [at] jeromebaum> wrote:

> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:44, Jean-Jacques Brucker
> <jeanjacquesbrucker [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > As it is WoT-based, a given currency can only be exchanged in only one
> WoT.
> >
> > Building a WoT is so the mandatory first step.
>
> Point still applies.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Both of them.
> >
> > If u want a short retrospection about my motivation
>
> Sorry for the subtlety, I was pointing out the fact that the Bitcoin
> creators needn't have economic interests in helping you, and still may
> be happy to do so. You should still definitely get in touch with them
> if you want to create an improvement over Bitcoin.
>
> >> > § 5 an entity is an human or a group of defined humans (no legal
> entity).
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > To keep things simple.
>
> Why is this simpler? How is any market going to spawn with your new
> digital currency if businesses are prohibited from trading there? Why
> make a restriction that isn't strictly related to the technical and
> economical model you are designing?
>
> >> 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:
>
> > By the way, such kind of rules is not in the technical heart of a
> WoT-based
> > solution which I try to define (and need help for that).
>
> Exactly my point when it comes to § 6.
>
> --
> Jerome Baum
> tel +49-1578-8434336
> email jerome [at] jeromebaum
> --
> PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
> PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-devel mailing list
> Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel
>

GnuPG devel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.