I've just finished listening to another Internet radio interview about bitcoin, and although some mistakes should be expected, please avoid spreading the meme that Satoshi is a "world renown" cryptologist.  He is not well known worldwide outside of this bitcoin community, and may not have training in cryptography.

I am under the impression that nothing codewise is getting done.

So lets assume that the private key for 'bytemaster' has been compromised.   Bytemaster issues the command to invalidate it.  Now 'bytemaster' is up for bids to the highest bidder.  All trust must be placed in the public key and not the name itself.  Transferring the name to a new owner would have to reset the trust.

Seems like the solution to this problem is to have a 'backup key' such that when the primary key is nuked the backup key takes over.  There could be multiple 'backup layers'.    To transfer a name would require signing the transfer will ALL backup private keys.  When a key is compromised the backup key could then be used to replace the primary key without destroying the reputation of the owner.

Now a site like 'google.com' could give out the private key to 'trusted' admins and lock away their 'backup key' in a secure vault without having to assume the risk of their valuable 'name' being destroyed by one dishonest admin.

Yes, all than needs to be included in the block chain is Site A's name and a hash of Site A's Public key.  Gaining access to the site via their IP address can be done through any method.  The point is that it is impossible to 'pretend' to be 'Site A' without having Site A's private key.

1.  The owner of Site A, create a private/public key pair, this par contains a Public Key.  The owner then Hashes the public key and creates Hash(KeyA).
2.  The owner of Site A then creates a new BitDNS transaction that contains "SiteA" and Hash(KeyA).
3.  A user looks up Site A in the BitDNS record and gains it's IP address AND Hash(KeyA)
4.  Then this user, navigates to Site A's IP address, and is sent Key A, and a signed welcome message.
5.  The user checks if Hash(BitDNS KeyA) == Hash of (IP KeyA).  If this is true, then a man-in-the-middle attack is impossible.

I agree that it is simple.

I think a reliable database of pseudonym to public key (or hash of public key, etc.) mappings could solve a variety of problems.

For example, i2p has an issue distributing eepsite keys in some trusted manner.  And, we're all aware of problems with DNS.

It seems to cover the "irrevocable eternal resource identifier" aspect of DNS but not the "pseudonym to pseudonym transferable virtual property" aspect.

All the chain needs to include is a name and a fingerprint of a public key.  Anyone who uses that name can supply the public key, and people can cross-reference the public key with the fingerprint.

The system is simple and secure.

Let me recalibrate my understanding.

Every computer will be essentially generating bitcoin. Essentially, it is hyperinflation. However, this distort economic calculation to a really bad level. Everything you invest in looks like a profit, when it's actually not.

There is still no incentive to save, because your saving is becoming worthless every single day due to inflation. Basically, it rewards the biggest generator at the expense of everybody else, except those who borrows money.

In the bitcoin economy, the generators still benefit disapportionately, but it will also benefit those who save. In other words, everybody who save win, except those who borrows money.

Investors in business will be forced to be more conservative or efficient at finding economic opportunity.

There is no incentive for early user to promote your inflationary currency, appammato.

There's no incentive for saving if it is eroded repeatedly by inflation.

No.  It would be a compromise that the Bitcoin community isn't interested in at this time.  It shouldn't be hard to do if the time came for it.

There is some compoetition in the form of dot p2p project.

I have read repeatedly that the achilles heal of Bitcoin is that 50% CPU threshold.  I have never heard of another one I believe might exist - the possibility that the Bitcoin community gets very large, and then has factions, the block chain forks, and the system crumbles in the face of FUD while two or more camps argue which leg is correct (sort of like a country that started out with a Constitution or a religion that started out with a Bible or Koran and now has two large factions eternally asserting their particular interpretation of it).  Two religious factions can go their own way and live their own separate lives on separate lands, but if they must trade while they can't agree on what constitutes the existence of money, the money may as well not exist.  If Bitcoin is in its "constitution" phase, I would submit that the time to address something like this is now.

One threat is from heirs of the original author, who claim that because the coypright disclaimer is unlawful, they retain the copyright and are therefore "owed" a lot of money.

Use the search function.  Look for 'datacasting' and 'Dash7'


that is the chicken and egg problem, isn't it?  A client that uses balance sheets cannot independently verify transactions based on blocks prior to it's own initial startup, but a client that uses the full blockchain to verify transaction history doesn't need balance sheets.

That would be a really efficient way of downloading the block chain, especially for poor communities. You can use Bitcoin with even the most primitive dial-up connection if you can get the block chain.

It's probably possible to allow people to download a "block digest" containing the first few few bytes of all addresses in that block. This wouldn't work with non-standard transactions, but it should allow general use without downloading entire blocks. Even this might be too much data for super poor communities in Africa, though.

Bitcoin can already work like this, just not as an absolute.  This is similar to my own 'datacasting' concept.

Instead, in a "mining cartel attack", I'm proposing that a substantial number of "miners" who possess a substantial fraction of the computing power of the network, but not necessarily 50% of the network, could form into a cartel that would only recognize blocks generated by each other.  Perhaps they would let a few other blocks get past them from time to time to hide this attack, but the vast majority of the new blocks recognized by this cartel would have to be produced by cartel members.  BTW, the "letting a few other blocks past" also reduces the percentage of the network needed by this cartel to pull off this attack as those other blocks are actually contributing to the overall strength by including "independent miners".

Some other popular copyright-free licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
http://unlicense.org/

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this issue, but I will say you have a long and tough road ahead if you are trying to get your political ideas turned into public policy and law, or for that matter widely accepted custom if you hate the concept of laws themselves.

What I don't understand is the attack upon copyleft principles when most of those who are involved with copyleft content development mostly support your view that substantial legal restrictions on the use of copyrighted content is wrong.  Copyleft supporters aren't your "enemy", but rather entities like Microsoft and Disney should be.  Of course I'm repeating myself now.  90%+ of the "licenses" on content (I would say 99% but copyleft licensing has made some inroads) have nothing at all to do with "freedom" or even "copyleft", but are purely to do with "proprietary" copyright restrictions.  By far and away the most common and to me the worst offender is the "end-user licensing agreement" (EULA) often seen with computer software but includes other products as well.  This is the "shrink-wrap license" where some courts have ruled that simply opening a package is the equivalent of signing and notarizing a contract.  Really, there are bigger fish to fry here, and attacking the copyleft community is only going to backfire any effort to further your cause.

Perhaps I guess the idea is to convince those in the copyleft content development community that licenses like the GPL are somehow evil and should be abandoned.  The arguments here aren't don't a good job as they aren't dealing with the causes that create licenses like the GPL.