Have a question? Want to advertise? Something else? Contact us: [email protected]

Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Blog Posts

  • Posts Authored: 3
  • Posts Contributed To: 0
  • 20 Comments
    5,134 views

    We Talk, Share, Create, Exchange, and Resolve: Decentralized Autonomous Society

    August 19th, 2014 by lainfinity

    New Editor: Crystal Editor: Cheryl

    Decentralized autonomous society empowers individuals by rewarding innovation through sharing, distributed ownership and abundance. By sharing innovative ideas we can build a much better, fair, transparent and innovative society which is based on group consensus rather than a society enforced by rules and regulations.

    Therefore for any society to operate on complete autonomy, it should have these 5 major components or in other words the 5 pillars as its foundation. I would like to explore these components and provide a bird's eye view of how decentralized autonomous society can thrive.

    • Decentralized Communication to talk
    • Decentralized Collaboration to share ideas and designs
    • Decentralized Creation to manifest goods and services
    • Decentralized Exchange to barter goods, services and resources
    • Decentralized Arbitration to resolve conflicts

    Decentralized Communication and Privacy

    Establishing privacy in our communication channels is the first and foremost priority in order to be self-autonomous and free. Without private correspondence we cannot strive to build a free autonomous society. Privacy enables an individual to be free as a self autonomous entity and thus empowering the society as a whole to be self autonomous.

    Why mass surveillance is a violation of Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of United Nations?

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.Source

    Mass digital surveillance in any form is an arbitrary interference of privacy and correspondence. Therefore it is a gross violation of human rights. On December 19 2013 the United Nations passed a resolution backing the right to digital privacy.

    Deeply concerned that electronic surveillance, interception of digital communications and collection of personal data may negatively impact human rights, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a consensus resolution strongly backing the right to privacy, calling on all countries take measures to end activities that violate this fundamental tenet of a democratic society.Source

    we can hardly trust any third party to keep our information safe and secure because of conflicts of interest such as maximizing profits and legal obligations to local jurisdiction. The E-mail privacy can only be achieved through decentralized peer to peer communication.

    How does Bitmesssage enable E-mail privacy?

    Bitmessage is a P2P communications protocol used to send encrypted messages to another person or to many subscribers. It is decentralized and trustless, meaning that you need-not inherently trust any entities like root certificate authorities.Source

    Bitmessage protocol implements two major features which are storing the information in peer nodes for a limited period of time and encrypting the message end to end. Thus it is extremely difficult for anybody to intercept the information.

    Bitmessage is not the only open source tool that enables digital privacy as there are many other tools which serve similar purpose. One such tool is known as Tox which fascilitates instant messaging and video calls.

    Tox is a free and open-source, peer-to-peer, encrypted instant messaging and video calling software. The stated goal of the project is to provide secure yet easily accessible communication for everyone.

    Decentralized Collaborative Sharing vs Centralized Hiding

    Let us imagine a cave man discovered how to make fire to keep him warm and cook food. If he did not share his discovery and decentralized the concept of light and warmth but instead claimed intellectual property right on how to make light and heat, I do not think I would be able to type this article in a markdown format and share my vision with all of you today. The moral of the story is to let your light shine. It would be nothing but an absurdity for anyone to claim a patent right on how to make light and heat because inventions and discoveries are nothing but an innovative improvisation of a priori.

    There is nothing wrong in awarding compensation for inventions and discoveries. But it should rather be awarded to the collective for decentralized collaborative sharing than compensating global monopolies such as corporates for centralized hiding.

    In 1742 Benjamin Franklin invented a new type of stove for which he was offered a patent. Franklin refused it arguing in his autobiography

    we enjoy{ed} great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours. source

    In similar veins Linus Torvalds could not afford to buy propriatiary Unix so he created Linux kernel and released the source code under GPL Licence so that it can be used for similar purpose and to empower others.

    Why is Linux kernel a success story even though it defied the conventional knowledge of the academic paradigm?

    Decentralized collaborative sharing enabled the success of Linux kernel.Thousands of ordinary people shared small pieces of code known as patches. Linus Torvalds designed and developed a tool known as git. This open source tool enabled the decentralized collaborative sharing by managing a distributed revision control archive and Linus along with his team merged the patches with the kernel.

    But the irony is that thousands of ordinary people who contributed to the Linux kernel walked away without a penny and the monopoly corporates such as Redhat and Google reap billions of dollars today in profits thanks to Linux kernel. It is neither fair nor ethical but it bootstrapped the open source movement because they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Open source tools that enables decentralize collective sharing

    Even though there are many tools that enable decentralize collective sharing I would like to highlight only two tools. One is git which enables to develop open source software by means of decentralize collective sharing and contribution of source code which I have discussed before. And the other one is Twister which is a hybrid of two peer to peer technologies such as Blockchain from Bitcoin and DHT from Torrents.

    Twister is a social microblogging peer to peer network such as twitter but is based on decentralized peer to peer network. It enables decentralized sharing of ideas and concepts without being tracked or compromising your digital privacy. It creates and authenticates users using Blockchain and stores the data using Distributed Hash Table (DHT)

    What is the issue with Centralized Hiding?

    By enforcing centralized hiding such as intellectual property rights on the masses, it leads to a situation where the benefits are funneled to the 1% at the cost of 99%. It also impedes innovation resulting in stagnation and scarcity thus empowering the few to control the many. For example if there are 7 different brands of cars and there is a billion of each brand, controlling and manipulating one of each 7 brands will be easier than controlling each of the 7 billion different cars. Control, manipulation and corruption are applicable to finite sets of numbers. They are of no relevance to infinite set of numbers.

    An example of a centralized hidden archive is the vault below the Vatican which runs for more than 52 miles and hoards vast collection of knowledge dating back 10000 years from various libraries from around the world such as Alexandria.

    Knowledge is power when applied, but is wisdom when shared. Power corrupts but wisdom redeems.

    Decentralize Creation and Abundance

    Let me clarify the key difference between creation and cloning. Creation is the process of manifesting our shared ideas and design into a physical or readable form. Cloning on the other hand is a process of producing photocopies of someone's design using it as a template. Creation can also be compared to writing your own book or novel but production is photocopying a book written by someone else.

    In a decentralized creation the value is based on network effect and abundance. Let us consider LTBcoin for example, the value of the coin will increase provided more people use the LTB network and the network creates higher quality content. Thus the value is not based on scarcity but is based on abundance. The decentralized creation operates on the principle of abundance, the more the better as we do not produce but we create.

    On the other hand, centralized production operates on the principle of scarcity of innovation, the lesser the better. This is because we do not create but we clone someone's design which resides in a centralized hidden archive. We are forced to pay a patent fee for the clone even though someone has the knowledge to design and create their own car.

    For example if we consider a centralized car manufacturing industry, the value of the car is directly proportional to the quantity that has been produced.Ford is a cloned mass produced car based on a single template.Even though there are million clones they have less value because they are not original, creative or innovative.

    Let me give you another example even though someone has the knowledge to use one of the open source software distributions like Ubuntu, every time he buys a new laptop or computer he is forced to pay the license fee for Windows which has its source code residing in the centralized hidden archive which the buyer has no access to.

    Decentralized exchange of goods, services and resources

    Any exchange involves two major transactions. We sell what we create and we buy what we need.Peer to peer payment system enables individuals to pay directly to the producers bypassing the middlemen. This enables the producers to have a better profit margin and the consumers to have better value for their money. One such example is OpenBazaar.

    OpenBazaar is an open source project to create a decentralized network for peer to peer commerce onlineusing Bitcointhat has no fees and cannot be censored.Source

    Lets say that you would like to sell vegetables from your garden. Using the OpenBazaar, you create a new listing on your computer with details of the vegetables and quote for the price in Bitcoin. When you publish that listing, it is sent out to the distributed p2p network of other people who use OpenBazaar. Anyone who searches for the keywords such as local vegetables will find your listing. They can either accept your price, or offer up a new price.

    If you both agree to a price, OpenBazaar creates a contract with your digital signature and sends it to an entity called a notary. In the case of a dispute an arbiter can be brought into the transaction. There is no third parties involved. The notaries and arbiters are also part of the distributed p2p network who the buyer and seller trust in case something goes wrong. The notaries and arbiters witness the contract and create a multisignature Bitcoin account that requires two of three people to agree before the Bitcoin can be released.

    Decentralized distributed exchange can also empower individual innovation at a personal level through crowdfunding. Crowdfunding in turn enables decentralized distributed ownership.

    Crowdfunding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people, typically via the Internet. One early-stage equity expert described it as the practice of raising funds from two or more people over the internet towards a common Service, Project, Product, Investment, Cause, and ExperienceSource

    How decentralized distributed ownership is different from stocks and bonds?

    Decentralized distributed ownership enables individuals to directly own a company but not through third parties like stock brokers or banks. The dividends are paid directly to the individual owners of the company. Distributed ownership can enable all the 7 billion people of this planet to own one single company directly without any major issues or downsides.

    The funds raised through bonds are invested in public infrastructure projects such as roads, rails, bridges etc. The decentralized distributed ownership enables individuals to directly participate in the public infrastructure projects without the need for bonds.

    Decentralized Arbitration

    We as individuals each one of us is a sovereign. We are not a person but a sovereign, which is a basic right granted by the Creator. We exist simultaneously in a parallel multiverse which has many domains or dimensions that exist in parallel but we are aware of only one domain. These are some of the practical implications of the Multiverse hypothesis.

    We can only be tried in any jurisdiction as a person. We consent to be represented as a legal person to be tried in a court of law in a temporal domain. A person is a legal entity such as a limited liable company which can be tried by any jurisdiction. The purpose of a legal entity such as a person is to limit the liability to this temporal domain.

    We can create our own rules without involving any third parties to arbitrate and abide by them as a sovereign as long as the rules are consented by the counter party and are not violating the common law or natural law. This is made possible by the application of smart contracts.

    Smart contracts are computer protocols that facilitate, verify, or enforce the negotiation or performance of a contract, or that obviate the need for a contractual clause. Smart contracts usually also have a user interface and often emulate the logic of contractual clauses.Source

    What is Temporal Jurisdiction?

    As a sovereign, if anyone prefers litigation rather than decentralized arbitration, then they should be at liberty to exercise their freedom to choose their temporal jurisdiction in order to resolve their conflicts.

    When Ethereum started the first round of crowd funding the funds are managed by a company incorporated in Switzerland. The developers of Ethereum had the freedom to choose their legal jurisdiction of sale and thus are accountable to the laws of Switzerland but not accountable to the temporal jurisdiction of Canada or USA. This is a classic example of exercising their freedom to choose their temporal jurisdiction in order to resolve their conflicts in future.

    Disclosure

    This article is meant for informational purposes and is not an endorsement. Articles published on the LTB network are the authors personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the LTB network.

    Further Reading

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_privacy

    https://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tox_(software)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)

    http://twister.net.co/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vZpNQUIqIg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

    https://www.ethereum.org/

    Read More
  • 22 Comments
    6,170 views
    Categories: General, Columns

    Solution to Sybil attacks and 51% attacks in Decentralized Networks

    August 3rd, 2014 by lainfinity
    Original (dhimmels):

    In the early days Internet started as a symmetric peer to peer decentralized network of computers. As time passed by, the Internet became more asymmetric and concentrated in a few centralized data centers with billions of PCs and laptops on the edges. The reason Internet started as peer-to-peer decentralized networks are scalability, high fault tolerance and resilience to censorship. However security is a major drawback in these types of networks as it is almost a certainty that malicious nodes will be joining the network from time to time. These malicious nodes can flood the network with invalid packets, thus preventing the packets from being delivered causing a simple flood attack.

    Another common attack is Man in the Middle (MitM) attack in which an attacker places himself between two peer nodes in the network. Such an attack can remain undetected, as long as the attacker remains passive. This also enables the attacker to listen to the communications between the two nodes. As a result, the attacker can assume the identity of both the peer nodes, compromise one or both nodes and try to infiltrate the network. 

    What are Sybil Attacks and Sockpuppets?

    Sybil attack is another security vulnerability specific to peer to peer decentralized networks as it is open and anonymous in nature. The attack is named after the subject of the book Sybil which deals with the case study of a woman diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder. The main component of the Sybil attack comprise of creating a large number of pseudonymous identities. Once the identities are accepted as peers they try to gain control of the network and subvert the whole network from within. The network’s resilience depends on the main criteria which is how easy it is to create an identity and be accepted as a peer. As there is no 100 percent fail-proof firewall against these types of attacks, the best defense against sybil attacks is to make it as impractical as possible.

    Sockpuppet is a term that implies many online identities for the sole objective of deception in the online communities.

    A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

    What is 51% attack?

    A “51% attack” means a bad guy getting as much computing power as the entire rest of the Bitcoin network combined, plus a little bit more.

    In his white paper Satoshi proposed the Proof of Work. The main purpose of this algorithm is to minimize 51% attacks. However proof of work does not completely eliminate 51% attack. If a bad guy tries to launch an attack, the algorithm makes it harder as it requires a lot of resources to take down the hashing power of 51 percent of the nodes that constitutes the Bitcoin network. I would therefore like to discuss the possibilities of mitigating these risks by proof of reputation.

    Why centralized proof of work increases the risk of 51% attack?

    Let us imagine a case scenario where the proof of work is centralized in a few data centers. As a result whoever controls the data centers can intentionally manipulate the proof of work algorithm of the decentralized network to his own ends. It is also feasible for the hackers to have a total control of the network. It will play out exactly the same way the centralized Bitcoin exchanges are getting hacked nowadays. Thus we can conclude that if we centralize the proof of work it only magnifies the risk of the attack rather than mitigating it.

    Why delegated Proof of Stake is equivalent to centralized Proof of Work?

    Delegated proof of stake magnifies the risk of 51% attack same as centralized proof of work. It is relatively easy to corrupt, say 100 delegates than to corrupt the 51 percent of the stake holders.

    A bank is an example of a hybrid of delegated Proof of Stake and fractional reserve system. When a user deposits 100 pieces of silver coins into a bank, the user delegates his stake of silver to the bank. Then the bank releases a token of 10000 notes based on the user’s 100 pieces of silver coins.

    The issue with banks is that it involves trusting the third parties as it is based on delegated Proof of Stake. If the trust is violated it magnifies the risk out of proportion because of fractional reserve system. Thus Delegated Proof of Stake cannot be classified as a decentralized system because one has to trust a third party to delegate his stake. In the long run more users tend to delegate their stakes because of brand loyalty, user friendliness etc. This leads to more centralization, violation of the trust, dilution and corruption of the whole stake. 

    Proof of Reputation

    The motive behind proof of work is based on the control of processing power while proof of stake is based on the percentage of wealth. It is very easy to corrupt both. On the other hand the motive behind proof of reputation is based on ethics and morality which is very resilient to corruption.

    Let us examine the Proof of Reputation in depth and its implications. Assuming there are 10 anonymous generals who don’t trust each other but are willing to undertake an invasion by providing 1000 soldiers each. In return they are willing to settle with one tenth of the spoils. It is highly probable for a general to either have 2 to 3 sockpuppets, to conspire with another 5 generals or the combination of the two.

    Let us now bring in the proof of reputation in the equation. Say for example each general has a score for Proof of Reputation which is based on how many of the 1000 soldiers like them. It is very difficult to gain good reputation for all the 3 sock puppets even if they tend to have similar reputation as it negates the purpose of the sock puppets. If a general tries to conspire with another 5 generals, it will be very difficult to conspire with all the 5 generals with good reputation. This is because each one will have to risk his reputation.

    In a decentralized peer to peer network it is next to impossible to corrupt 51% Proof of Work, 51% Proof of Stake and 51% Proof of Reputation of the whole network. 

    Implementation of Proof of Reputation

    Proof of Reputation can be implemented as an assurance contract which is explained as follows:

    In a binding way, members of a group pledge to contribute to action A if a total contribution level is reached. If the threshold level is met, the action is taken, and the public good is provided; otherwise, the parties are not bound to carry through the action and any monetary contributions are refunded.

    The problem with assurance contract is that it enables free riders. Free riders are those who do not contribute to the public good but reap the benefits of the public good at the cost of other contributers. In order to eliminate the problem of free riders, Alex Tabarrok proposed Dominant Assurance Contract by publishing a white paper. Dominant Assurance Contract not only defines the monetary incentive, expiry date as in Assurance contract but also adds another parameter known as minimum number of contributers required for the contract to come into effect.

    Therefore Proof of Reputation has to be implemented as a dominant assurance contract to discourage free riders. One method of implementation is based on semi-trusted oracles. Gavin Andresen explains the implementation as follows.

    So I’ll start there, and imagine that there are semi-trusted ‘oracles’ that compete to be the most reliable and trustworthy verifiers of contracts. People involved in contracts choose N of them, and then require that contract conditions be validated by one or more of them before the contract pays out. Pick more than one so no single oracle can steal the contract’s funds, but less than N in case some of them go out of business or just aren’t around to validate contracts when it is time for the contract to pay out.

    These oracles need an agreed-upon, machine-readable contract language, but that shouldn’t be hard. There are lots of interesting design decisions on what information contract scripts have access to (and lots of not-so-interesting-to-me design decisions on the language itself; is it stack-based, register-based, high-level, low-level bytecode, etc etc etc).

    Another method of implementation is by awarding tokens to miners based on honesty and integrity. Tokens are basically an implementation of the assurance contract to make sure that the motives of the miners and end users are aligned for the common good. For example, if the mining pool operators will tweak their mining rigs between 10-20 percent for a period of time then the operators will have an incentive to be honest and earn reputation as tokens in addition to mining incentives. If a miner is using a mining pool, he can pledge may be 5% of his total Bitcoin mining towards the dominant assurance contract so that the mining pool will receive a reputation token which can be pegged to the market value of Bitcoin.

    Tokens can also be crowd funded as a pledge by the stake holders in the decentralized network to ensure the miners and pool operators have an incentive to be honest, hence earn reputation. The tokens can be earned or burned depending on the nature of the coin which is either inflationary or deflationary. If it has to be burnt it can be released as a token and claimed by charities.

    The tokens can be issued either as 1 to n, n to n or n to 1, depending on individual requirements based on Counterparty protocol, Colored coin protocol for Bitcoins or Dogeparty protocol for Dogecoins.

    Another method of implementation is using the Lighthouse platform. Lighthouse has a lightweight encrypted HD wallet. It uses payment verification by directly synchronizing with the block chain. It also enables dominant assurance contracts for people to pledge for the projects directly using Bitcoins. If they want their money back before the contract reaches its target amount, they can revoke the pledges they have already made. As the contract is entirely based on the block chain, pledges cannot be claimed individually. They can only be claimed when the combined pledges together reaches the targeted amount.

    LTBcoin

    In LTB network, Proof of Reputation is being implemented to defend against sockpuppets which is based on token controlled access. Each piece of content is mapped to certain tokens and quantities. If the quantity is zero, the content is accessible to users. If the quantity required is more than zero, the content is then blocked.

    Token-Controlled Access (TCA) is a simple idea. In a given system, different levels of access to that system are granted according to the combination of tokens in a particular user’s wallet. 
    Token Controlled Viewpoint (TCV) is an application of TCA to information content (forums, posts, comments, bonus content, bloopers, walkthroughs, tips, tweets, supplemental blogs, RSS feeds or other data) on basic web pages. 

    Disclosure

    This article is meant for informational purposes and is not an endorsement. Articles published on the LTB network are the author’s personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the LTB network.

    Read More
  • 12 Comments
    3,220 views
    Categories: General, Columns, LTBCoin

    Blockchain Bootstrapping Resource based Economy

    July 14th, 2014 by lainfinity

    ADAM's NOTE: PLEASE EDIT THIS COPY FOR THE TEST

    Summary

    • Differentiation of the blockchain from proof of work to proof of resource.
    • Advantages of a resource based economy.
    • Disadvantages of a consumption based economy.
    • Examples of resource based crypto-currencies.

    What is Proof of Resource?

     

    The Bitcoin network is built on Proof of Work, which is based on an algorithmic assymetry: valid hashes are computationally easy to verify but difficult to create. The vast processing power devoted to mining consumes electricity and therefore the bitcoin network is resource-backed.

    Downsides of the proof of work model such include the cost of maintaining the network and centralization of the asymmetric processing power. However instead I would like to discuss the upside which is long term impact of blockchain technology on the economy.

    Resource Based Economy vs Consumption Based Economy

     

    The concept of resource-based economics was developed by Jacque Fresco through his Venus Project in 1995.

    The Venus Project is an organization founded by Jacque Fresco that advocates for what it calls a resource-based economy. The goal is to combine Fresco’s versions of sustainable development, energy efficiency, natural resource management and advanced automation in a global socioeconomic system based on social cooperation and scientific methodology.

    Jacque Fresco’s work focuses only on natural resources of the planet such as minerals, natural gas and oil. However in the internet era, the scope of resources goes beyond natural resources of the planet. In a decentralized computer network resources include processing power, storage and network bandwidth. In any given community, resources include member skills, software development, availability of tools, and content produced.

    Since our current economy is based on the equilibrium between production and consumption, perpetual growth is only possible with perpetually increasing consumption. In other words, for growth to never reverse or cease, consumption must eventually become infinite. As inflation is baked into the very core of the growth pattern of this economy model, it is like a tornado that feeds itself anything on its path. Among this model's destructive consequences are peak oil, depletion of natural resources, and ever increasing pollution.

    Transition from division of labor which is Proof of Work by humans to Proof of Resource has already begun. Division of labor was advocated by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Thanks to the innovation of Blockchain, the technology is moving towards transforming centralization and corruption into decentralization, transparency and accountability at all levels.

    One of the main advantage of Proof of Resource model is that it is based on deflation rather than inflation. This is because the resources do not and cannot be inflated to infinity. Gold or any mineral mining are very good examples of this model. By implementing the Proof of Resource in a decentralized system we are making sure the resources are not controlled by few but managed by the people based on group consensus.The Blockchain enables the group consensus and empowers the people on a grass roots level.

    When we observe how nature operates, we can infer that the natural world conserves resources by reducing, reusing and recycling them. The planet powers itself by with plants that photosynthesize rather than combust fossil fuels. The planet’s ecology does not operate under the premise of inflation but is guided by the principle of conservation.

    Resource based Crypto-Currencies

    Proof of Resource model is implemented in some of the crypto currencies such as LTBcoin and SolarCoin. These are backed by resources such as community produced content and production of electricity through solar energy.

    Why is LTBcoin Proof of Resource based?

     

    Proof of Publication and Proof of Participation are the basis of LTBcoin. This model considers content produced by the community as a resource. The end users, who are the consumers, earn coins by participating in the community and enhancing the content through Proof of Participation. The distribution of LTBcoin for the next five years is as follows. 

    • 60% of LTBcoins will be distributed to members who publish content on the LTB Network 
    • 25% of LTBcoins will be distributed to members who are the end users 
    • 10% of LTBcoins will go towards the  maintenance of  the platform
    • 5% of LTBcoins will go towards administration 

    The main advantage of this model is that group concencus is required to control the discussion. This makes subtle censorship less likely than on sites like reddit or slashdot.

     

    Solarcoin

     

    SolarCoin is backed by two forms of proof of work. One is the traditional cryptographic proof of work associated with digital currency. Another proof of work is a 3rd party verified meter reading. SolarCoin is equitably distributed using both of these proofs of work as a means to reward solar energy generation.

    SolarCoin is the first renewable energy currency and also a resource based coin as it is backed by production of solar electricity. One solarcoin is rewarded to the producer of 1 megawatt of electricity.


    Disclosure

    This article is meant for informational purposes and is not an endorsement. Articles published on the LTB network are the author's personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the LTB network.

    Further Reading

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphWsnhZ4Ag#t=13 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsV_3yBDXXI 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations 
    http://www.hashcash.org/ 
    http://wiki.solarcoin.org 
    http://solarcoin.org/news/

    Read More