Not sure why this one should fare better than similar proposals which have either failed or turned out as scams. Initial analysis suggests that should this experimental network ever scale to anything the size of an national economy, only owners of the most powerful and well connected data centres will have any good first chance of synchronising understanding and verification of the valid next block. That is not what I would call a 'peer to peer' network; this approach to cryptographic guarantee of anonymity seems to result in a currency system dancing to the tune played by the likes of Google, Facebook and the botnet herders.
These are not a group of potential prime movers I'd trust with defining the future policies and parameters of a monetary system more than the current bunch of jokers, whom we can vote out of office on occasion when we feel like it.
This particular experiment also seems to offer more a means of _consuming_ valuable resources than a means of _offering_ such as guarantee in exchange for currency offered in exchange for goods and services marketable in consideration for other currency options.
Distribute this one into millions of microcurrencies and more people can play at defining the parameters and acting as notaries within the context of more community localised networks. You also reduce the anonymity to something similar to current bank networks, which are politically tolerable from this point of view: anyone underwriting a system genuinely anonymous enough to fund terrorism or assassination will be taken out using military intervention if lesser sanctions fail. But if you are going to do this using millions of microcurrencies, you may as well use double entry accounting without arbitrary constraint on fiat monetary quantity, supported by issuer reputation, conventional crypto and smart cards.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds