No, I think it's far from perfect. I think the database should be distributed into some kind of DHT structure, and I think anonymity should be far stronger, and the default. (Ie. diametrically opposite to your third desire.) I guess I agree with your first two points, but have no good ideas on how to achieve them. (I certainly would not sacrifice my principles simply to get 99% adoption among merchants.)

The "bitcoin community" is not some monolithic Borg mind. Different people want different things. You seem to want State surveillance built in to your currency. I'm sure there's an altcoin that already does that for you. Bitcoin is not the only digital currency. So your real question is: "why don't more people want surveillance / regulation?"

Your other problem is that you arrogantly assert that your ideas (ie. surveillance) are better -- an evolution. That's quite insulting.

My point was that it *takes time* to trust a system. Freenet has been around for many years, having experienced and ironed out countless serious unforeseen bugs.




How is it not "completely anonymous"? (As if anything can be.) Are you referring to freenet-opennet, or freenet-darknet -- the latter being the goal, the former being discouraged, but even so, has never been de-anonymized in practice?

It is indeed slow, and not currently suited for real-time low-latency usage. (But nevertheless great for forums and popular file sharing.) What are MaidSafe's latency numbers?



Huh? I meant that with trustless opennet's, there is a very serious risk of Agents infiltrating your peers, or poisoning bootstrapping lists, or Sybil-like attacks, etc. Friend-to-friend (darknets as opposed to p2p opennets) offer the only credible solution to this, IMHO.

Perhaps because it takes time to develop trust in the security of a network? (Which includes trust in the core software, the network and infrastructure, and the core devs.) How long has MaidSafe operated in the wild?

Perhaps because the market is already kindof satisfied with existing solutions? (Freenet, I2p.)

Perhaps because trustless opennet's are doomed by design? (This is why Freenet strongly encourages moving to a strictly darknet friend-to-friend model.)

Good, citizen! Follow your orders.

I was actually referring to actually programming morality / law into the protocol. Starting from core axioms (of non-aggression), with potential competition in certain parameters ("statutes of limitation", criteria for land ownership, etc). I.e. the decentralization and real codification of the entire legal system. So users wouldn't be voting on the morals of the situation (that would already be pre-coded), but simply on the facts of the case, which are not under dispute in this case.

Of course, users will be free to disagree with the axioms or parameters of a particular brand of MoralCoin, and it would be fascinating to see which brand of law/morality would succeed.

This is trivial to accomplish, and morally[1] justified. The real question is how successful would a competition of MoralCoins be. I think it actually might even be possible to algorithmically program moral rules into the technology -- whereby there simply needs to be a near-consensus of client-provided factual input, and the algorithms handle the rest. This would alleviate the ubiquitous fears of slippery slopes and emotional mobs.

For example, nobody can deny that the coins were taken from DPR without his consent. Someone might try to "argue" (in MoralCoin's programmable logic language) that DPR was bound by a so-called Social Contract, but that will be invalid since a contract requires informed consent. And so on.

[1] Morality is universal. (And thus rational / logical.)

Even though it offers "root access", is the phone still able to be spied upon and tracked? (I think most still ping while "off"?)

They[1] did it with our human genome, 3 billion base pairs, in 130 books. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20520843
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYEjU96QcX0

The question applies to any state in the world.

It's trivial to make illegal. It might be hard to enforce such a law, but that doesn't matter -- just like copyright laws, all one wants is the majority to be scared shitless and to stay in line.

Will 2013 finally be the year that statists take bitcoins seriously?

Well said ex-resentful sir.

I might add to this wonderful exposition, that there may also lie a danger in the opposite direction -- in not "knowing" (with confidence) that which you do know.

As has been mentioned earlier here, by odolvlobo and Aahzman, there is a distressing misunderstanding of what morality is, and hence the nature of the original question is quite silly.

Morality is something that can and should be universally enforceable. The original proposition seems to suggest that buying graphics cards, or electricity, or not rewarding smart people is "evil". That is an incorrect proposition.

I think the 5-posts-in-newbie-section limit is a bit excessive.

Crypto-anarchy for the win!

Bitcoin Over Freenet (BOF) allows transferring blocks and transactions to and from Bitcoin clients using Freenet. Bitcoin clients may be isolated and only update through BOF.

freenet:USK@2PktPfXYLYJ4Ra0tOG3aWRbBhPwr~uCbsLN8TMu4s50,BNvgtnRqAliOqfHK4R1QzILri4BI1A7DvUmTI44rHio,AQACAAE/bof/1/