[liberationtech] Digital Social Currency Design

[Jonathan Wilkes]

Yes, I have read it.Question to show proof of our comprehension: why are you using the phrase "longest chain rule" to describe Bitcoin's algo for syncing the database?  I'm guessing you use it because that's how it's described in the whitepaper.  But that's a misnomer carried forward in the Bitcoin community-- probably out of laziness, and a vague notion that everyone there will understand that "longest" = "greatest total difficulty".  If Satoshi didn't initially understand that difference _at_ _all_, we certainly shouldn't expect cryptocurrency outsiders to make sense of it.  (No matter how technically adept you assume they are.)
Second question: Did you look at Ripple in either of its incarnations?  The first incarnation isn't really decentralized, but it does address your laissez-faire bootstrapping needsto the tee.  Maybe that sounds suboptimal to you, but all the various alt-coins show that it is just as difficult to solve the bootstrapping as it is to solve the db sync'ing.
Best,Jonathan



 


     On Sunday, August 9, 2015 4:57 AM, Jaromil <jaromil at dyne.org> wrote:
   

 dear John,

On 9 August 2015 01:42:05 CEST, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi jaromil,I fundamentally do not understand why you are using a global
>transaction database designed solely to synchronize with a minimum of
>good faith, in order to facilitate a social graph on human scale among
>good faith actors.

Perhaps because I am not.

I allowed some time for a response hoping to debate the topic with those who
have read D4.4, the document I've posted. Sorry if I ask, but have you read it?
Because if not, then there is really no point in discussing it.

ciao



  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20150809/8787d67a/attachment.html>