3 ms·

I believe there's already a system like this, that uses Turing-complete rules described in natural language to regulate the behavior of a network of independent

by al2o3cr 10y ago

I believe there's already a system like this, that uses Turing-complete rules described in natural language to regulate the behavior of a network of independent agents (both human and computer). They're called "banks", regulated with "laws" and "lawyers". But seriously, some of these requirements appear to make an implementation exceptionally challenging - in particular, if value is allowed to leave the system by transforming into other currencies or tangible items then #5 essentially requires lawyers. #2 and #3 together also seem to imply that a state-level actor could create arbitrary balances in secret. I would like a genius and practical mathematician and programmer to suggest an approach. Wouldn't we all. And for free on HN, too!

notimpossible 10y ago
I found your introduction exciting, until I realized you were only just joking about the real-world. Well, regarding a state-level actor being able to create arbitrary balances in secret: I specify only forfeiture, not creation. In essence each state to which someone checks their allegience should be allowed to remove (as punishment or following whatever rule of law process is in place there) whatever they want from any of their citizens' accounts. This would at least allow some recourse against illegal activities. Yes, the involvement of the respective governments' legal systems is obviously a given. The difference between this and banking is that banks don't operate a distributed monetary network anyone can join and transfer coins among without any fee: on the contrary, banking infrastructure is cumbersome. The required scheme has the goal of allowing governments to intervene directly. Otherwise it would be like bitcion. Also the onerous proof of work blockchain work requirement is lifted. However the mathematics and trade-offs to make this work are not obvious. Hence my Ask HN. Thanks for your response.

by al2o3cr 10y ago

notimpossible 10y ago

I found your introduction exciting, until I realized you were only just joking about the real-world. Well, regarding a state-level actor being able to create arbitrary balances in secret: I specify only forfeiture, not creation. In essence each state to which someone checks their allegience should be allowed to remove (as punishment or following whatever rule of law process is in place there) whatever they want from any of their citizens' accounts. This would at least allow some recourse against illegal activities. Yes, the involvement of the respective governments' legal systems is obviously a given. The difference between this and banking is that banks don't operate a distributed monetary network anyone can join and transfer coins among without any fee: on the contrary, banking infrastructure is cumbersome. The required scheme has the goal of allowing governments to intervene directly. Otherwise it would be like bitcion. Also the onerous proof of work blockchain work requirement is lifted. However the mathematics and trade-offs to make this work are not obvious. Hence my Ask HN. Thanks for your response.