Quote from: jdbtracker on April 21, 2013, 05:45:23 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 21, 2013, 04:19:48 PM

Quote from: jdbtracker on April 20, 2013, 05:26:20 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 20, 2013, 03:25:46 AM

Quote from: jdbtracker on April 19, 2013, 01:08:57 AM

....me just trying to figure out how to stabilize bitcoin so that it can be used as described, It obviously was supposed to spread the wealth among the population, with greater and greater automation occuring the wealth of the world is being concentrated into the hands of the few causing massive inflation and instability in the economic system., the p2p Bitcoin system was supposed to counter that. ....

Man, that crazy talk. But I'll play.

Please support the claim with direct quotes from the source.

The proof-of-work(facts) also solves the problem...

What your lengthy reply was was an iteration of the general theory of and use of bitcoin. What it was not was support for your person opinions which I commented on and which I repeat in part.

It obviously was supposed to spread the wealth among the population, with greater and greater automation occuring the wealth of the world is being concentrated into the hands of the few causing massive inflation and instability in the economic system., the p2p Bitcoin system was supposed to counter that. ....

By the way, I'm NOT criticizing your opinions. I'm just saying they don't follow logically from the bitcoin model. Neither do we have direct evidence to support your views. Such as "Nakamoto SAID..."

No, he didn't say.

No, it does not follow.

Sorry... I got carried away with something else I noticed in it, I encourage people to question me, I learn better that way.

I was reading Satoshi's paper to find all the peer to peer references, this is what I was thinking of... why didn't Satoshi just use a encryption for each coin in circulation with a Trimmetric Encryption, three keys. one for the bank that owns it assigning them as the Institution in possession of it, a public key for transferring it between institutions and a third key that would be an extra key assigned to the possessor of the coin?

Since the system is running from the banks you would have to connect to your bank sooner or later. Since every single coin is encrypted and never leaves the bank and just hops from bank to bank with new encryption keys at every level no need for peer to peer communication. and each coin is encrypted so it becomes really insane to try to steal a large amount of them, you could only rob one person at a time and even then you have to break the bank branches encryption to get rid of which bank owns them not to mention re-assigning it to the attackers institution; plus if the banks Firewalls/Network has no record of that coin, it can effectively deduce that it is a fake; and it scales too, you can add as many keys as you need for multiple parties, making it extremely difficult to falsify.

I can show you how but I won't; I like Bitcoin.

there are a lot of ways to re-invent the wheel and keep it completely centralized.

If he had done that it wouldn't of had to be Peer to peer, anyone trying to break the individual code of each coin would find it inpractical to do since it would take weeks just to falsify 1 coin.

i simply deduced it from all the mention of peer-to-peer that's all.

My thinking is; Why would Satoshi program the client to pay out a standard fee of .0005BTC for every transaction? I think he wanted to spread the wealth and figured the transaction would number in the quadrillions.

This is simply speculation on my part, guessing, trying to understand what this Person or Group did. I just can't imagine them doing this and thinking that people would expend resources for free...why would they code it in there?

I love this community! Bitcoin is so deep on so many levels! so many puzzles!

OKay, I understand this commentary quite well. This follows a from b from c and so forth.

My thinking on the transaction fee would be just to place a small incentive on peer to peer database maintenance. Why didn't he include banks? We could conjecture that he found them to have been and be capable of being subjugated to the will of the powers of state (even in cases where the banks are not owned and operated by the state - many countries that is the case).

Let me continue this line of thought a moment. If banks had been involved in the equation, would you or any one on this forum be here now?

NO!!!

So the rule set would then have had to be top down implemented by a government or the UN or some such corruption. And they will try to do this - they will try to implement electronic money. But the problem with that is that every single thing you do would be known by the government. Lots of people would have a problem with that.

I rather think that he considered the possibility that a equation and system set might cause the light to go on in peoples' heads that they could take personal control of the problem of money. But that's just my WAG. Nakamoto feel free to private message me and provide input (LOL).