Comments on New Currency Frontiers: The Footprints of Flow

Ok, I probably had this coming - my mistake in ass...

2009-03-25T18:27:00.000-07:00

Ok, I probably had this coming - my mistake in assuming that your were making extraordinary claims without seeing the actual implementation that you are working on. Sorry.

While I cannot really grasp all of the concepts in this article, I could kind of see how the linked chain idea would probably be a much tighter implementation of integrity check than the way I'm demonstrating it in Prowl, i.e., the article suggests a digest for every posted record while Prowl is for a whole report of records.

But still, I cannot grasp how it works in practice, so hopefully your eventual demo would help shed more light on this concept/applications.

In the spirit of giving credit where credit is due...

2009-03-25T17:41:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of giving credit where credit is due. I first encountered the idea of these signed, linked receipts in an article by Ian Grigg about Triple-Entry Accounting: http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html

"Also, as far as I understand Prowl, you are shari...

2009-03-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

"Also, as far as I understand Prowl, you are sharing everything transparently and openly. This is not the same as being able to give specific keys to parties to access only the appropriate data within specific transactions. So we are talking about quite different mechanisms."

Yes, my demo does not cover this specifically, but I felt that this would be a trivial extension to the Prowl specs if so desired. In fact, no specifications could prevent anyone from using encryption of published records. I alluded to this concept - having some kind of authentication mechanism - in a reply to the announcement to the Rippleusers group.

"I don’t see anything related to this in the Prowl...

2009-03-25T09:31:00.000-07:00

"I don’t see anything related to this in the Prowl specs,"

See lastReport.SHA1 parameter, etc. and cross verification by [notary.org] optional parameter in Prowl specs. The demo allows the user to change parameter values or notarized records to see the report integrity check in action.

I am also very excited about what you are doing and sincerely wants developers to have concrete success in newer, saner currency designs. I am committed to being open about my results, and I see and appreciate that in your approach as well.

But when it comes down to sharing ideas, there is a tradition of acknowledging sources even if belatedly notified. I feel that more than just talking about strategy, I have also proved the concept of reported data integrity in practice - through time series reports and across domains - without knowledge of previously published practical demonstrations. Please correct me if you know of other published works that have earlier proofs of concepts than Tyaga's demo of the core strategy that you cover in your post.

My interest in this issue has nothing to do with patents (I doubt the idea is patentable) or claiming originality for file SHA1digest signature or cross-domain verification. I'm simply trying to put recent events in its proper documented context, before lesser known contributors gets relegated to obscurity.

Edgar said: "...it just sounds like you are trying...

2009-03-24T13:33:00.000-07:00

Edgar said: "...it just sounds like you are trying to present the idea as something completely original when there is already a working demonstration since early January that has been announced...”

This post is about Intrinsic Data Integrity. I did not present it as an original concept but gave multiple examples of where it is currently in use (CRC, Checksums, git, etc.). I don’t see anything related to this in the Prowl specs, and I’m not aware of any currency systems using this approach.

Also, as far as I understand Prowl, you are sharing everything transparently and openly. This is not the same as being able to give specific keys to parties to access only the appropriate data within specific transactions. So we are talking about quite different mechanisms.

And as far as timing is concerned, I first presented much of this strategy for a distributed architecture to the open money folks at the Nighthawk conference in July of 2005 and have been working on various aspects of it and other currency projects since before that time.

Are you feeling that Prowl is in some way unacknowledged or ignored? I think what you’re doing is great! I’m glad that someone is doing it.

I think the problem space that I’m working in is different so the solution is different. I want an open, distributed architecture which includes open/evolvable definitions of sophisticated interdependent currencies (from my expanded definition of the term) with a broad range of privacy/transparency options. So...that’s what I’m working on.

I like that Prowl, Twollars and others are making forays into related spaces. I think we have a lot to learn from what happens with each others systems in practice.

The following excerpt taken from your post sounds...

2009-03-24T12:31:00.000-07:00

The following excerpt taken from your post sounds too much like what is already being demonstrated at http://tyaga.org/prowl/.

"This data could be specifically shared with the parties of each transaction, or shared with third party notaries or auditors, or possibly open to public review. New ways of analyzing and aggregating the data become possible, because the original data is available in a linked and signed chain."

To me, it's just sounds like you are trying to present the idea as something completely original when there is already a working demonstration since early January that has been announced at openmoney ning and other discussion groups.

The castle and moat analogy reminds me of this "Bo...

2009-03-22T07:41:00.000-07:00

The castle and moat analogy reminds me of this "Boundaries, Bridges and Towers" post from more than a year ago at
http://satconomy.org/2007/12/03/implementation-analogies/.