Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM¡<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=845.msg9937#msg9937">Quote from: epaulson on August 17, 2010, 06:45:18 PM</a></div><div class="quote">I think the most apt description of Bitcoins is that they are shares of stock in this communal Bitcoin enterprise we are undertaking. <br/></div><br/>I'd like to submit that I think the most apt description of bitcoin is that it is most like a Global Exchange Trading System (GETS) which is a variation on the LETS concept that isn't for hippies.<br/><br/>Descriptively it differs because it's community is loosely knit and global rather than an intertwined small-town. As such, there can be no commonly trusted party to operate and monitor the system, so that function is trusted to redundancy and mathematics. (block list)<br/><br/>LETS communities can rely on "local knowledge" of peoples historical behavior and intentions. As such it is perfectly reasonable for them to advance credit to people (negative balances) in certain situations. In a GETS community advanced knowledge of all parties and intentions is not practical or even preferred. As such, GETS operates on a zero credit policy. (no negative balances)<br/><br/>Also, since GETS trade globally, there is no "national currency" that can be used for equivalence. As such, GETS defines it's own unit for accounting purposes. Since this currency must necessarily vary against some national currencies, the LETS strict "no interest" principle cannot be preserved.<br/><br/>----<br/>I think if people understood LETS they would intuitively understand GETS. The rest of the bitcoin details are just one possible GETS monetary policy.<br/></div> text/html