From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WCZef-0008ID-8M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:03:01 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1WCZea-0007HO-Qt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:03:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by nl.grid.coop with local; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:02:49 -0600 id 000000000006A340.0000000052F7D0D9.000062C2 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 13:02:49 -0600 From: Troy Benjegerdes To: Peter Todd Message-ID: <20140209190249.GG3180@nl.grid.coop> References: <20140209171214.GA20126@savin> <201402091725.42306.luke@dashjr.org> <20140209181132.GF3180@nl.grid.coop> <20140209183831.GA8878@savin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140209183831.GA8878@savin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1WCZea-0007HO-Qt Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Embedded consensus system upgrade procedures X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:03:01 -0000 > > The only 'assertion' of central authority here is people who download and > > run the code and submit to whatever the code asserts they are supposed to do. > > > > At least with the 'central authority' of the big-business bitcoin developer > > cabal I can read the code before I submit to it's central authority, and > > this is a significant improvement over amgibuous legislation or proprietary > > high-frequency trading algorithms. > > Standard Disclaimer: Digital asset transfer systems are fundementally > fancy accounting systems; no amount of code can, by itself, make data > represent a physical or legal entity. Only consensus and/or authorities > in the "real world" can do that. Crypto-currencies are only a partial > exception to that rule, and only because a scarce asset that can be > transferred digitally appears to have potential to be broadly useful. How do I document in the embedded consensus system what the ruling in a small-claims court about the ownership of a contested asset was? Good accounting systems (such as mercurial, and proper double-entry financial accounting tools) allow reverting a bad commit, or bad data entry, while maintaining records of the history. Not as good accounting systems (like git) allow you to re-write history. What's the equivalent user interface, process, and wire protocol for reversing a fraudulent transaction while maintaining a full audit trail? Courts can't legislate our code, and we can't expect them to download and trust our 'distributed de-centralized' digital asset tracking system that will be downloaded from a single centralized developer website unless we meet them at least halfway, and probably need to propose model municipal and county ordinances that go along with our code releases. > Those considering investing in or otherwise devoting resources to the > creation of digital asset transfer systems should be warned that their > value in general remains unproven and losing some or all of your > investment is very possible, even probable. I myself have doubts that > these systems serve real-world business needs, but the only way to find > out is to build them and see. I would agree 100% that we need to build them, test the code, use them, and then *try them in court*, and make sure we can explain in very simple plain language what an 'embedded consensus system' is to the distributed de-centralized local court systems.