Quote from: grue on December 20, 2011, 12:34:10 AM

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 20, 2011, 12:13:00 AM

Quote from: grue on December 20, 2011, 12:04:00 AM

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 20, 2011, 12:01:48 AM

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

no one is forcing you to use it.

You came on so strong to start with, now you just sound like a little pussy with hurt feelings. Did you stick out your tongue when you typed that? If you did, what were you hoping to find with it?

i could say the same for you. let's see the arguments you abandoned so far:

Quote from: grue on December 19, 2011, 11:43:08 PM

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 19, 2011, 11:39:11 PM

Notre Dame. University of Chicago. John Marshall Law School. Please hold your breath while waiting, I'll surely hurry back with more. BTW, I reserve the right to say whatever I like to a retarded child such as yourself. Sorry, you gave yourself away immediately.

that's not proof.

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 19, 2011, 08:49:45 PM

In any case, the only practical value I see in bitcoin is as a transactional system.

WELL NO SHIT? bitcoin is all about transactions

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 19, 2011, 08:49:45 PM

I am sufficiently experienced to recognize that in the worst case a black box behavioral emulation of bitcoin as a transactional system could be built, perhaps out of as little as hamster wheels and rubber bands, perhaps more. Decentralized distributed data models are very common, there are many solutions to maintaining coherency in them. So on and so on. Yawn, been there, done that.

so it's ok to think centralized, but it's not ok to think decentralized? weren't you the one asking people to think outside the ox? Roll Eyes

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 19, 2011, 08:49:45 PM

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

bionic "credits" are more for show than anything else. even then, it relies on a central server to keep tally.

let's not forget the fact that since page 2, all you have been doing is criticizing the system without providing a real solution. complaints are everywhere, solutions are not.

oh, it's not a strawman if it's a position explicitly stated by you. Roll Eyes

edit:
moar arguments

Quote from: Qoheleth on December 19, 2011, 11:36:46 PM

So, first off:

Quote from: Flip Tulipcoin on December 19, 2011, 08:49:45 PM

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54222.msg647423#msg647423

I looked at this proposal, and it's still missing the secret sauce. It has the idea of using "trustworthiness" on the network to determine nodes' weights in getting to sign off on a transaction having occurred or not occurred, but doesn't explain how "trustworthiness" is determined.

Now, certainly, if there was some way to establish such a thing, algorithmically, in a way that prevents both sockpuppet shenanigans and the long (but big) con, then you'd be done! You wouldn't need proof-of-work anymore! The problem would be solved!

But... that's a hard problem. That's one of the fundamental hard problems in this field, from what I understand. I've not yet heard of any algorithm to do it. And the proposal given doesn't say one word as to how it would be accomplished.

So let's put that aside for the moment. Let's take a step back and look at the requirements for a currency. To me, they seem to be:

Multiple accounts, each with a persisted balance that cannot change except in atomic transfers
The ability for the holder of an account, and only the holder of that account, to atomically transfer funds to another account
Privacy of the account balance with respect to any individual account holder. (Possibly. Not sure if you care about this, although many folks around here do.)

Are there any proposals that address these requirements, of which you're aware? I should note that since reliance on a "trusted authority" would allow such a party to violate invariant 2, the solution cannot rely on one.

mega tunnel vision much?

Back from dinner. Obviously you have been having fun playing with yourself while I was away. Sorry to see you couldn't keep up with the finer points, it makes you such a cranky child. BTW, is English not your first language? Is it perhaps a language without Latin or Greek roots?

I did get some good ideas from Qoheleth, enough to warrant further research and consideration. OTOH you may go back to pulling your pud, little girl, you are the most useless fuck I've talked to all day. Seriously.