Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 29, 2013, 08:53:37 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on March 29, 2013, 08:26:41 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 29, 2013, 08:19:02 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on March 29, 2013, 06:40:22 AM

Having numerous competing P2P currencies does not escape from this diabolical threat, if all of them have the same diabolical design. A non-diabolical design would either have debasement that never ends and/or a minimum transaction fee.

Is it a diabolical design or not - http://qubic.boards.net/index.cgi?board=theconcept&action=display&thread=1 ?

Is your argument that there is no first mover advantage, thus a competing P2P currency can be created at any time to fix any design flaw that handed control to corporate monopoly?

As I explained in my prior post, I would not agree. You would have to address my prior post and show me why I am wrong about the first mover advantage.

I don't say you are wrong about the first mover advantage. In my concept there are no fees, no way to identify approved/non-approved users, 51% attack becomes 99.999% attack for paranoic users, transactions are handled outside the system, scalability is not an issue... Just interesting if my concept looks non-diabolical from your point of view.

Where is the technical description of your algorithm?

Readers please note he is not disagreeing with me whether Bitcoin has the problem I allege.