Christine Lemmer-Webber <cwe...@dustycloud.org
> Here's an idea I've had kicking around. I've thought it might be an
> interesting way to upend peoples' assumptions of what a "cryptocurrency"
> entails, and for that matter, "smart contracts" (I hate the "smart
> contracts are code that runs on a blockchain" redefinition).
> It's at least a useful concept. Is it possible to actually work? I
> think so but I'm not sure. I've thought about writing this on my blog
> or something but I've held off fearing I'd be ridiculed. But maybe
> cap-talk is the right space of people who can be critical thinkers about
> this without ridicule.
> Ok here goes:
> - Start with a deterministic abstracted machine/vat running on Spritely
> Goblins, Agoric's stuff, whatever. The vat/machine is deterministic
> in that anyone who receives the agreed upon incoming set of messages
> is able to run the same abstract machine.
> - Select five countries with five very different legal jurisdictions
> which you believe have a significant likeliness to allow this project
> to continue. Now select five official stewards in those countries.
> This is now a quorum: if three out of five machines agree that X is
> the next message, then X is the next message. Transactions can thus
> be wickedly fast, but no one (or even two) countries can shut it down.
> - Now throw a mint on it, either the classic Ode-style E mint or
> Jessica's Pebble Bank. It doesn't really matter, either of those two
> will do.
I guess I didn't link to either of these. Most people here probably