Just trying to get my head around LottoShares and it seems odd to suggest we all must create new wallets and addresses and transfer existing balance then import the wallet.. just to prove that we are the address owner in claiming Lottoshares and others?.. Would it not be easier to use a signed confirmation and not disrupt everyones existing addresses? I recognise that might be complex but it's surely within the bounds of what is possible from the user side.. unless those wallets are more limited that ye olde BTC wallets.

I don't know, if this is an option for AGS holders even, rather than trusting thirdparty code.

So, I just took a very quick look at what's available for Linux.

The newest builds .deb files from http://bitshares.org/resources/downloads/ for both Bitshares-PTS and bts_wallet give me "Error: Wrong architecture 'amd64'".

It's not obvious what to do with the Keyhotee tar.gz as there's no readme file. I see the qt.conf but haven't time atm to see if it's possible to build with qt-creator and I wonder there's no point for non-founders just yet.


I wonder it might be useful to have an obvious catch-up detailed somewhere that makes obvious where each product is upto relative to users interest in just downloading and running something useful and knowing it's not still beta. Again, there are becoming too many threads of development across different crypto offering that making it clear where BitShares is at will become more important to save confusion from majority users.

So, this is half an idea but I'm going to throw it out there anyway..


The problem:

There is a central authority, for postcodes. In the spirit of doing away with the need for central authorities, I wonder then a DAC might be useful.


The motivation:

There is value in having consensus.
UK Postcodes alone are valued at £1.8bn a year. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26605375 for the recent reaction to learning that UK.gov sold off that postcode detail.


The solution?:

As much of an idea as I've had then is to setup a DAC as a reference for addresses - postal addresses and other real world place markers.

Rather perversely, I'm not sure whether this needs a blockchain, as there is no transfer required but instead just a consensus on what the reference is. So, a simple match of the address in a standard format, perhaps is the private key that gives a public unique reference address, which perhaps would be useful for automation and engaging the real world in a standard way. I wonder this almost calls for a reversable key rather than an encrypted one.

I'm struggling then to see how this might be implimented in a way that is easy to reverse, given that normally the move from private key to public address involves a loss of information.

If such a reference can be easily reversed, even if by lookup on the 'blockchain'; and if consensus could be found for such a reference, then 'profit' follows from the savings made from the efficiency such a reference provides.

If it is a lookup service, then populating the data might be a problem; if the public address is easily reversed to the 'private' full address, then no population of a blockchain is needed. This then I wonder is where the idea falls short.. If you need to populate the blockchain then that is tough data to get, if you don't then what is the point?.. and yet consensus is value, so how to secure that value??


The reward:

Not for profit but as a loss leader. If there was a good way to make this consensus and do away with central authorities, then perhaps providing such a simple reference service for free would be a useful catalyst for engaging a wide audience for other DACs?


Disclaimer: I'm not a clever man, so not in a position to implement any of this myself.

Brain over.