Un scan de l’œil et de l’index seraient la meilleure solution pour une commauté infinie…
That’s a great thing that iris and digital print are unique…
But, imagine a people under pressure or that someone did a conform copy or has the original iris and the digital print of someone else.
Furthermore, these equipment are expensive.
I am more in confidence with web of trust compound of humans… 
What is the interest for a community to be compound of an infinite number of individuals knowing we could exchange between theses different communities?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
C’est une bonne chose que l’iris et l’empreinte digitale soit unique…
Mais, imagine qu’une personne soit sous pression où bien que quelqu’un ait fait une copie conforme ou possède l’original de l’iris et de l’empreinte digitale d’une autre personne.
De plus, ces équipements seraient coûteux.
J’ai plus confiance dans une toile de confiance composée d’humains…
Quel serait l’intérêt qu’une communauté soit composée d’un nombre d’individus infinie sachant que l’on pourra faire des échanges entre les différentes communautés ?
Mais, imagine qu’une personne soit sous pression où bien que quelqu’un ait fait une copie conforme ou possède l’original de l’iris et de l’empreinte digital d’une autre personne.
C’est plus facile d avoir les codes que de couper un doigt d une personne
it s easier to have the password than to cut finger of the other personne
De plus, ces installations seraient coûteuse.
dans quelle monnaie ?
which money ?
Quel serait l’intérêt d’avoir une communauté composée d’un nombre d’individus infinie sachant que l’on pourra faire des échanges entre les différentes communautés ?
si tout le monde a confiance en une monnaie pourquoi en avoir plusieurs
if everybody trust on one money why to have more ?
Attention à bien séparer les problèmes, celui de l’unicité d’un individu dans un système monétaire et celui de l’authentification pour accèder à son compte.
Actuellement, l’authentifaciton à son compte bancaire se fait via les couples carte bancaire ou identifiant ainsi que leurs mots de passe respectifs.
Des techniques d’authentification basés sur l’iris et d’empreinte digitale serait plus coûteuse matériellement que l’identifiant et son mot de passe entrés via des touches de clavier.
Si des personnes ont confiance dans une monnaie, il s’imposera de créer d’autres monnaies similaires dans le cas où la première atteindrait une taille limite. Cette taille limite est là pour empécher un potentielle attaque de Sybil. La taille limitée de la toille de confiance permet de vérifier plus facilement les potentiels intrusions.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Whether people got confidant in a money, will impose to create other similar money in the case where the first money reach a limit size. This size is here to prevent a potential Sybil attack. A web of trust limited size permit to easily verify potentials intrusions.
1 Like
What do you mean by “everybody trust” ? Do you mean “everybody(x)” and if so where is “t” !?
Do you mean “everybody(x,t)” trust" ? But if so, how can everybody(x,t) trust anything without being observed with that property by at least an individual(y,t+g) ?
And how an individual (y,t+g) could have any trust in “everybody(x,t)” knowing it is now everybody(x,t+g) to be observed, and without any chance it would be the same as everybody(x,t+g+h) ?!
So what do you mean by “everybody” ? Do you mean everybody(1973) able to conclude : yes everybody(2015) will have a debt to pay, because we decide it for them, denying the Relative Money Theory human space-time and the Thomas Paine principle ?
None of the “graph-rules” really solve the problem: “evil” users cooperating should still be able to get fake accounts, and it should not be all that hard either.
I think what we need is a strong incitement to behave honestly. Dishonest behaviour must be punished by the system, and very harshly so. Only something like this could discourage people from attempting to cheat.
It would seem that this means that an exposed cheater must lose not only his fake accounts, but his “real” account must also be restricted, otherwise he has nothing to loose trying to cheat.
So far there are only “positive” vertices in the WoT, so bad reputation doesn’t really “spread” through the system, at least not in a direct way. To kick a cheater out of the system you would need to cut off the signatures which make them members, which would be hard. Having “negative” vertices in the graph might be an idea, but introduces new problems…
It has been demonstrated that monetary system has a great impact on human behaviour in society.
You probably don’y speak french (nobody is perfect 
) but these interviews are really relevant.
http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2015/06/video-geconomicus-la-corbeille-aux-5emes-rencontres-des-monnaies-libres.html
With RTM, money is no more a problem as everybody has money.
The incentive to fraud is not as big as you might think.
1 Like
Le parametre Temps “t” est pris en compte puisqu il faut etre certifier par les autres membres tous les mois
Parameter Time is in concideration because we have to be certify every month.
Comment créer de faux compte avec un scan de l oeil jumeller avec une empreinte plus certifier par une communauté ?
How to create fake account with eye scan and finger print + cerfity by community ?
all computers, smartphone have a camera to scan …
I mostly agree to your analysis. I have been working on a very similar proposal that also works with something similar to the WoT mechanism of Ucoin. However - creating a connection to a new (fake) member can only harm the person who created the connection. You find the proposal here: https://ourbasicincome.wordpress.com/ Discussion on it is here: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/1598/basic-income-circles-reputation-market-based-approach-to-solve-the-identity-problem-sybil-attacs
You can have a look at this other subject to understand how to me, it might be that hard.
Furthermore, we are talking about human relationships. We can’t just think like if we were all geographically distant from each other behind our computer. Neither should we think tools for observing the WoT won’t emerge to help us ban cheating people.
I think this is important. What might be helpful is to see a UCoin currency as a commons - a public good that serves everyone but can be exploited by a minority and than it looses its value for all. Elinor Ostrom (the first woman to win the nobel price in economics) has done some great research on how to protect commons. She came up with 8 rules she found in all the different societies she looked at where commons are used in a good way:
- Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
- Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
- Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
- Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
- A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
- Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
- Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; and
- In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of
multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the
base level.
I think it might be worth to map this rules to the existing of UCoin and if one is missing : think about how this can be solved.
That Circles-idea looks very interesting… But I need to think about it more
1 Like
Free money is not a “public good” it doesn’t “serves everyone”, and doesn’t “looses its value” at all. All this is nonsense. Neither it is a “group money”, that deny freedom.
- Any man is free to choose his money
- Any man is free to use values including money
- Any man is free to estimate what is value or not
- Any man is free to exchange and measure with the money he has chosen.
It refers to the 4 economical freedom, that are freedom relatives to a man, not a “group” neither to the money itself (in a free money it is not the money that is free, but the man who uses it), and Relative Money Theory demonstrates that a money coherent with the 4 economical freedom in space and time is a free money (as in free speech, not as is free beer = “libre” in french, not “gratuit”), funded in a Universal Dividend which value depend only of Monetary Mass, human members of the Money, and average life expectancy with two space-time conditions :
What is the point of your post?
You are not trying to understand what I meant and you are not trying to help me understand what you are meaning because you are showing just a formula where not a singe variable is defined and you link to french texts.
Ich erwarte auch nicht, dass Alle anderen Menschen Deutsch können.
Well I guess, Galuel is trying to explain the RTM, but with french links and without an english translations of the theory it’s quite hard.
The project to translate the Relative Theory of Money is getting more and more important, for people to understand ucoin better .
ucoin is for sure a group money software, but first and foremost, it’s a free money software as defined by the RTM, and thus we need to translate the RTM asap.