3 ms·

Users cannot engage in transactions with themselves. Updated the doc to reflect this.

by djestrada 13y ago

TheLoneWolfling 13y ago
How would one enforce this? (Answer, you cannot. So this is not a valid solution to this problem.)
iancarroll 13y ago
What would you do if I created another address?
- eximius 13y ago
  This was immediately what I thought of. It would take a very short amount of time for a client to show up which automatically manages and balances your accounts.
- djestrada 13y ago
  From my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm > I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- whyenot 13y ago
  author: don't use a url shortener or HN will kill your post. For those who don't have showdead turned on, here was his response: From my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm > I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
  - infogulch 13y ago
    @author: Define the "external network". What keeps a single entity from simulating a network just as large as everyone else combined? At that point, how does one determine which network is the "correct" one, though both are the same size with the exact same connectedness stats?
  - djestrada 13y ago
    Thanks! Fixed.
hibikir 13y ago
I don't even have to engage in transactions with myself, but create a small cartel that really love each others' transactions. Think of the good old link farm sites from the early days of Google. You pay, and a bunch of positive feedback is provided between sites. In your case, you could even do the opposite: Pay me and my friends, or we will dislike every transaction you will ever make. Built-in racketeering

Users cannot engage in transactions with themselves. Updated the doc to reflect this.

TheLoneWolfling 13y ago

How would one enforce this? (Answer, you cannot. So this is not a valid solution to this problem.)

iancarroll 13y ago

What would you do if I created another address?

eximius 13y ago
This was immediately what I thought of. It would take a very short amount of time for a client to show up which automatically manages and balances your accounts.
djestrada 13y ago
From my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm > I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
whyenot 13y ago
author: don't use a url shortener or HN will kill your post. For those who don't have showdead turned on, here was his response: From my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm > I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
- infogulch 13y ago
  @author: Define the "external network". What keeps a single entity from simulating a network just as large as everyone else combined? At that point, how does one determine which network is the "correct" one, though both are the same size with the exact same connectedness stats?
- djestrada 13y ago
  Thanks! Fixed.

hibikir 13y ago

I don't even have to engage in transactions with myself, but create a small cartel that really love each others' transactions. Think of the good old link farm sites from the early days of Google. You pay, and a bunch of positive feedback is provided between sites. In your case, you could even do the opposite: Pay me and my friends, or we will dislike every transaction you will ever make. Built-in racketeering