(Request for Clarification) Membership not Needed to Send Transaction?

Continuing the discussion from Transaction fees: bug or feature?:

A core feature of the uCoin base is that certifications are needed to be part of the community. Once one is part of a community, he begins to receive UD. The UD can be sent to other users of the currency.

Here is where I get confused: according to the protocol ( https://github.com/ucoin-io/ucoin/blob/master/doc/Protocol.md#transaction ) any holder of a wallet can send UD whether they are a community member or not. That destroys the reliability of an identity linked to a PubKey.

Should not enterprises also register their identity with the community? Without certifications, we can not comfortably know that they are who they say they are. (This makes scams a lot easier.)

Enterprises are legal entities, so I believe that they should be permitted to register an identity within the WoT alongside individuals.

Can someone explain to me why anyone is allowed to send a transaction even if they no longer have the certifications necessary to prove their validity (and acceptance of their claim)?

Others will know better than me because I’m not involved in this development.
I think that the whole idea of WoT and membership is to prevent individuals to receive several universal dividends.
Therefore, people or entities outside the WoT do not earn the universal dividend (basic income). I do not think it is a problem that they can trade with people from within the network?

For instance one organisation can receive/send currency yet this entity does not earn an universal dividend as it is not “human”.
Similarly, I can create a second wallet for whatever reason and use it to trade currency. Yet this wallet will not earn an universal dividend either because I already earn one in my main wallet and I can only earn one universal dividend.

Did I get the reasons for this choice right? At least it makes sense to me

The uCoin currencies are based on the fact that recognized humans as members of monetary communities can co-produce their UD / units,

So an identity non-member can receive or send money to any other identity, it is not a problem,
but this identity cannot co-produce units.

The important thing is the monetary creation.

Maybe some people want to create an organization, and they have to put a part of money on it, so they create an identity for it.

@scith @s_b_ Thank you both. It makes a lot more sense now.

Yes they are right.

About the protocol: it says anyone can write a transaction with a UD in it, but it also says a transaction with a UD in it must be justified by the fact we must have been a member for the targetet UD.

Also, the technical protocol isn’t very helpful in its current format for people who want to learn about uCoin: it is just a set of rules without any explanation. It targets only developers once they understood the global frame beforehand.

Hi all! Just reading a lot of topics to try and understand things and their implications.

Isn’t this a bit dangerous? As long as “uCoin/Duniter” communities have to transfer “money” value with the rest of the world (that still uses banks and so on to create money), isn’t it a huge risk to offer the possibility of anyone creating one (or many) “enterprise/association/structure” to manipulate your local community money in order to jeopardize it? Unless the community is 100% autonomous (quite difficult in this globalizing world), this seems to me as a huge Achille’s heel, especially as free-money communities starts arising.

Let me give a simple example.

Imagine a super rich power that wants to create chaos to shatter or destroy a small target community using the free money BRZ. That power creates a non member entity E in that target community. E starts buying off as much BRZ as possible with dollars. BRZ is gaining a lot of value, little by little, and importing gets more and more expensive for that community. When things start stabilizing again, E sells all the money they’ve bought - thus creating a tsunami on your import/export and shattering your local economy.
Basically, if you compare with the disks in the TRM theory, they would create a huge hole of money in some external part of the disk (at a great expense, but we all know that it’s not a problem for them), and then suddenly release it.

In that regards, shouldn’t we need different levels of “membership trust”? One for “non-members who can exchange money” (without creating UD), one for the “members creating UD”, and “members who are so trustworthy that they can validate blocks”?

This must have probably addressed elsewhere and you’ll probably contradict me easily, but I couldn’t find any argument against this scenario so far (bear with me - I’m new here and I didn’t even finish the TRM book yet).

Yes you have to first appropriate the concepts, notably the Relativity principe which in your example would say:

It’s OK if people prefer to give the BRZ money against dollars. That’s the value they want to get, and they can do it precisely because they have a BRZ Universal Dividend.

So there is absolutely no problem here.

Also, you say:

You refer to a time window. How much time? Do you take into account how much BRZ will be issued during that time? What will be their impact on import/export?

What will bring the distinction between members creating UD and members able to generate blocks in addition?