:: Re: [unSYSTEM] Rethinking cryptocur…
Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Amir Taaki
Datum:  
To: unsystem
Betreff: Re: [unSYSTEM] Rethinking cryptocurrency as accountable distributed decisionmaking
merchant client updateable transactions (micropayment channels).

say we want to trade 1 DOGE for 1 BTC
tx fee = 0.001 BTC (or whatever)

we incrementally trade 0.001 BTC at a time until the trade is complete.
important is that increment <= tx fee.
you cannot scam this way.

I guess with an exchange it would be super slow making increments of
$0.01 at a time so maybe wouldn't work. But for digital assets or any
service this is ideal.

On 13/05/14 23:49, Domatron Graves wrote:
> I feel like the exchanges are and have always been the weekest link in
> the bitcoin ecosystem. Does anyone know of anyone developing ideas for a
> decentralized exchange system. Perhaps someway of automating deposits to
> bank accounts. Maybe some kind of front end client that can integrate
> with a banking website. I can't think of anyway this can be done without
> all security being compromised by trust in the bank as a third party though.
>
> On Sunday, May 11, 2014, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@???
> <mailto:justusranvier@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 05/10/2014 08:33 PM, Kristov Atlas wrote:
>     >
>     >> The problem is no accountability, voters are locked in once the
>     decision is made. This made sense in the days of horseback travel,
>     but in a post-bitcoin world this idea is preposterous.
>     Accountability is necessary all the time, and applying the metaphors
>     and tools of Bitcoin we can achieve it.

>     >>
>     > No software can solve the issue of initiating violence. This is
>     the actual problem with politics, not accountability. Direct
>     democracy might be an incremental improvement, but I'd rather flip
>     the board rather than rearranging our chess pieces. It's time to evolve.

>
>     I agree. Using software to incrementally improve voting is putting
>     lipstick on a pig.

>
>     Enlightenment is the recognition that voting as a mechanism is incapable
>     of conveying legitimacy (if ethics really were derived from a majority
>     consensus, then we wouldn't recognize gang rape as evil).

>
>     The lawmaking process is not broken because of a failure in the election
>     systems - it's broken because it shouldn't exist.

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>