:: Re: [unSYSTEM] Rethinking cryptocur…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Adam Gibson
Date:  
To: System undo crew
Subject: Re: [unSYSTEM] Rethinking cryptocurrency as accountable distributed decisionmaking
On 05/14/2014 12:49 AM, 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.

This is exactly the problem we're trying to solve with tlsnotary.
See the technical description.:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.msg4998488#msg4998488

More accurately, we believe we have solved it. We are running lots
tests now.

Manfred Karrer is looking at integrating it (tlsnotary) into his
project described here
also:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462236.0.

You can find us chatting on #bitsquare quite often.


>
> 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
>