I was going to make a new thread but you made one first. Instead of using an arbitrary "trust" variable which some smartypants could skew, why not just use the concept of bitcoin itself? Let''s call the architecture "Bitchange" because I think it sounds cool.

I was talking with a friend about the Mt.Gox debacle and he had an idea for a new mining opportunity, while increasing market security.
They aren't anybody with economic, programming or common sense experience. This is just a high-ass idea.

Trading would be handled with the Bitchange client program, like Bitcoins.
Trading security and confirmations would be handled by the mining machines.
Trading information security distribution would be handled by tradepools.

My argument to him is the 50btc newblock reward can't be integrated. This looks like a serious detractor.
He said there should be enough transactions to support it using a responsive, floating percentage fee.

exchange fee --> mining roi (a marginal roi, imo)
exchange nodes --> mining pools (who would get paid very little)
exchange market --> bitchange network & executable

+security enhanced
- very ddos resistant; would require all tradepools to be synchronously attacked
- distributed records; hostile entities might be statistically identifiable
-- might discourage nefarious people
- no email or password requirement, personal security=caveat emptor
- no central exchange point
-- no market control through exchange control
- open to audit from blockexplorer equivalent
- transactions guaranteed via math & mining, not trust
- new, risky trading systems are forced to be market independent (derivatives market, etc.)

+extreme redundancy
- exchange history core distributed amongst all traders & miners
--financial scams much easier to prove existing (Madoff, Ponzi, etc.)
- use of legal exchange points using a mining pool distribution concept
- any fiat currency might be exchanged based on liquid availability (is this even legal/possible?)
- world bitchange market + external exchanges (TradeHill, Mt.Gox, etc.)

=unknowns
- considerations for in/exclusion should be made regarding the operation of robotic trading
- market/trade reaction times inherently delayed
-- slower speed may contribute positively to market stability
-what about fiat currency handling? dwolla, libertyreserve?
--If for example Dwolla is used, how would dwolla bucks be transferred & secured?
--If for example Dwolla goes out of business, what options for fiat:btc exchange exist?
-would direct fiat trade be statistically non-anonymous, or even possible at all?


Technical problems for contemplation:
Trading is normal, all systems nominal, then TradepoolX is knocked offline from DictatorZ.
Would the market be effected in any way?
If DictatorY cut out the internet would the blockchain be effected? (Re: English market & Libya)

Would a Mt.Gox attack occur ONLY if every effected trader has been infected/compromised?

Would traders obviously going about hostile business be restricted with a price-band?
An example would be +-20% of current price. A current price of $17 would set minimum sell to ~$14.




Again, this is just a stupid, high-ass idea and probably wouldn't work.