Quote from: r0ach on August 25, 2015, 07:05:38 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on August 25, 2015, 06:30:47 PM

Quote from: r0ach on August 25, 2015, 06:23:55 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on August 25, 2015, 05:44:40 PM

"Actions contain metadata which nominate 3rd party actors as trustworthy at that time. 3rd party actors prove their trustworthiness via Proof of Work challenges. Trustworthy actors can then have influence on conflicts and arrive at a majority solution."

That was such ambiguous, long winded terminology, it was almost an exact recreation of the Conan O'Brien Bitcoin clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd19SboRhVY

I would just call it an automated reputation protocol then go on to explain details from there.

How is it ambiguous? It provides a complete, clear explanation of what it does and how.

Can you explain POW or POS in as many words?

"Bitcoin is secured by a Proof of Work algorithm whereby actors attempt to solve a cryptographic puzzle. The POW challenges are of varying difficulty depending on actor participation to ensure that challenges are not solved too quickly and that conflicting solutions are rare. The first solver of the puzzle has the right to modify the state of the ledger. The process repeats."

Thats about the best I can do.

I don't think I'm really nitpicking here, but trustworthiness is an extremely ambiguous term that I would probably avoid using. It's usually not used in relation to any data that can be quantified, while words like reputation are in systems like Ebay. The word trust usually implies what one party thinks of one other party, while the word reputation usually implies what many parties think of one party. This is why I said I would call your system an automated reputation protocol and abolish the use of the word trust or trustworthiness in any of it.

Ok fair enough, I thought you were referring to the statement as a whole. Now you've explained I see where you are coming from.