Quote from: sphere on December 30, 2013, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: Mike270 on December 29, 2013, 10:35:02 PM

Well, I'm not yet an expert on this as I just recently read about it at
http://www.coindesk.com/bitgo-safe-aims-secure-bitcoin-wallets-multi-signature-transactions/

How about using such a multi-signature method? That way, a "consortium" can decide on the funds and needs a n-out-of-m majority for signing the transaction.

Also: Look at how Freicoin is doing on their end, they have the same problem to solve with their key where the fees go to.
About concerns of the dev using the coins other than expected: Well, whatever is decided, he has the private key of the address where they go to NOW anyways... Whomever he hands the key to, he might have a copy. Which does not mean I mistrust him, just stating the fact.
Could be solved by releasing a new code which sends the fee to another address, moving funds to that new address, and have that new address generated by a to-be-nominated comittee. Not sure if a multi-signature key would require a new address anyway (assuming that globe supports this feature or can be made to support it, not sure of the requirements here).

Kind regards
Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your contribution. I think this would be even more impractical then my idea Grin

. The price stabilization mechanism would be run by a script and buy/sell based on predefined rules. The mechanism once their is market-depth may work very fast buying and selling multiple times throughout the day to ease price movements. Asking a group of people 24/7 to approve or disapprove a transaction would therefore be difficult.

For the reserve I think there are other methods of making sure that 1 individual alone cannot access the reserves. For example we could set passwords to access the "private key de-crypting password". The passwords could then be switched between members. So 1 member would need another members password to access the "private key de-crypting password". We can go more detail into this lets fist embed the reserve and price stabilization mechanism into Globe.

To be honest we have already had to change the code twice after release. You can see the effect it has had on Globe. I would rather not edit the code and release the QTs again because it may just kill Globe. Sad

If I have missed anything or you want to discuss this further feel free to post

This is precisely the problem, you shouldn't have released Globe until you had (1) built in a described and preferably a decentralized mechanism for stabilizing the price, (2) described the process for applying for & releasing developer funds, (3) Fund-raised the BTC and LTC stabilization funds before release. Globe was likely dead at it's half-baked conception. For the stabilization process to work, Globe needs to be exchange traded at release. I suggest you think seriously about re-developing the concept. Perhaps you should integrate Globe with an escrow-backed virtual counterpart issued in colored coins or on the MasterCoin protocol—the latter option would allow for decentralized, rule-based price stabilization see https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec#escrow-backed-user-currencies.