Still a free site. Ignore ads! Page's Starting:

RcoinWiki +Start new +RcoinForum Meetups+Invitation pad+chat
@Github + org rcoin.txt (Preamble) Contents+ rcoin.h+IIaOM.hpp +in pdf+db-schem+rcoin.c

This is a call and specification for agpl developers developing the comcom-platforms. This project's aim is to build the infrastructure for a new concept claiming that the memebrs in any democratic organization must be equal (peer) owners over the assets/proprieties of the organization (owners as shareholders having equal number of shares). For more about this concept try these 6 pints, the yes i am angry project to boycott for equally owning part of the sellers, comcomizing (by) the occupy movements, the concept of the peer owners home, like this one and the manual and also try our facebook.
» Develop the platform platform: GitHub license: Agpl. adaptive/alternative Identification, decentralized and self Regulation, secure communication and data holding;This project's aim is to build the infrastructure for a new concept claiming that the memebrs in any democratic organization must be equal (peer) owners over the assets/proprieties of the organization (owners as shareholders having equal number of shares)
»» Democratic device

See also: improving the tor interface to become anonymous also with the giants.

the Applications
CommunalCoin Uid Spec2 - Unique identification device (Uid) for agpl developers An Identification device for democratic applications sdsp Secure Data Storage Protocol p2g4p peer to group for peers - the communication is never directly between users and only user to group and group to all users Regulators identity holding + board-meeting-app (drupal?) project tracking issue] E-democracy theory and practice social-app stock-exchange app
The licensing1 for the platform for comcomized units
of at under
specification here and elsewhere CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
application and code github agpl
the authorization that the code produce the intent application the comcoms in the chain of the #G(global) #L(local) #P(provide) #U(use) @A@
email address
Interesting for me as:
In the emerging comcom my position should be of peer owner or of ordinary-owner?:
try or

self-organized-regulator-systems2: This server/client application is designed to provide decentralized systems of identification and regulators adaptive to such of passport or alternative to those. Specification:

  • Spec1: It is required for all kind of comcom's regulations to insure that via all layers of holding, no holder could have more than one potion -
    • This is to be done by "trees of ownership" in which the owner is one child of the owned,
      • where the one-who-invites is the connection between the owners and the owned,
      • where the root of such tree is the sys registering the ownership form the most owned entities (as children of the sys) to the most owning being the people (as the leaves in the tree) and
      • where each leave is associated with person identified by one unique "print of autonomously" (see spec2).

  • Spec2 - Unique identification device (Uid) for agpl developers: An Identification device for democratic applications providing a unique identification per each user/owner.- specification from here;
    • Read only hard coded: one ISO of Simple and Primitive Os to guarantee either communication in sync until completing identification of ALL members before voting or alarming the system (simultaneous use of identical hash or wrong location+time of use, or wrong imitating hash), where a sphere of an identity is to be checked out-and-in by bluetooth for serving alone in a specific area, while connecting to comcom centre, for not allowing use of the same computer with multiple identities or of stolen/bought additional identities which are issued and maintained via such centres and where the ISO also include an encrypted directory of:
      • hash of each item of the sensitive data of the user;
        • 1. the ID of the inviter inviting the person to the comcom
        • 2. the person's name
        • 3. the document of the picture, like passport or a community document
        • 4. the picture, which is able to be identified by a layman as of the one from the document and as of the person identified by the ID
        • 5. secret phrase.
      • hash of each item of the sensitive data of the trusted manufacturing, including id of the specific usb to which the hash of the content of all the usb must be matched;
      • user's signature key;
      • list of one or more encrypting user's keys.
    • Protocol including: shaking hands starting in hashing the content of all the usb, then sending it with the hash identifying the user:
    • Alarming the system: where p is the number of known peers and u is the number of online users in the current simultaneous session, in the case of :
      • p=u:…
      • p>u: check for falsifying identities
      • p<u: check for multiple positions

CWOT - comcomized web of trust: hashing-without-collusion: for (x=0;x<X;x++) Y=SHA256(Y), where X<1 and X is the number of creating hash on the hash until having no hash-collusion, and then X and Y are concatenated with the and X is given as token to the user as additional parameter. use case :

  • in new registration of owner registering the id by creating such hash, only after asking all other CWOT if having such id and only where all of them answered "not having that hash".
  • in new registration of property: checking for the coherent tree of property being parent of its owners via all the direct and indirect owners per each comcom.
  • Qualifying the authentication of the identity/ CWOT considering the number of precipitant in multiple comcomized check-up in which all peers attend .
  • It can be added to usb stick of operating system communicating for voting as the content of stick including the stick serial number its creator etc is hashed and identity the stick
  • When hashing the information of the "real identity" ( identified by government or other )

Question? hash can be used with attached token which can also include sequence of base for sequence of modulus operations.

  • Spec3: Each registered entity has one number "i"==("s","e","q"), where
    • "s", is id of one such sys in use by other such sys
    • "e", is id of one Entity registered in such sys
    • "q" , is also a column name, in the table holding such id in such sys
      • as "q" is a qualifier of the (registered) entity, which reflect one of the 3,
      • when "q"=0 , the entity is person,
      • when "q">0, "q "is the degree of being held and
      • when is "q"<0, "q" is degree of authentication being authenticated by this sys (most near is -1 directly authenticated by this sys , as the ones authenticated by those of -1 are in -2 etc)

  • Spec4: The authentication (by encrypted hashes) between such sys, where "A" authenticate "B" and per entity matching id registered in "B", is as following (see also this):
    • the entity register on "A" itself with its ("e","q") and its name and in the same time (+- 10 minutes or so) "B" notify "A" that this is happening.


  • 1) The "s" should be calculated in base 2, such that
    • when "s" is odd then it is identifying other such sys (self-organized-regulator-systems) and
    • when "s" is even then it is identifying non comcom organizations , e.g. such as private company type ltd in london or so.
  • 2) The "e" should be calculted in base 3, such that
    • when remain =0 then the comcom is Scomcom
    • when remain =1 then the comcom is Icomcom
    • when remain =2 then the comcom is Dcomcom
  • 3) “identity proof” of 5 elements: A) first name, B) last name, C) who invite, D) recognized authority issuing document of identity (such as Germany issuing the document being passport) and E) photo able to be identified as the one of the one from the document of identity.
    • Having such “identity proof” of an holder been registered, requires that the holder already agreed to lose all holding registered in the system and in the systems collaborating with it, as it is found that per each such registered ComCom, the holder holds directly, or indirectly, more than one position.
      • Hence the more valuable comcomS are registered in it the stronger is the proof the system can provide. (it might be useful to require reinforcement of the identity every 3 months).
  • 4) On any authentication&login (including via p2g4p between u and g or client and server on sdp), check of id in respect to holding in all comcom in the system for having no id has more than position in each comcom.
  • 5) This could also make one farther step in the concept of bitcoins (analogy to gold) - the step of Dcoins (digital coins, analogy to cogency per community of the sys, such community as a state), which
    • instead of sending the chain-log to any, sending it only to the memebrs in the sys, and
    • instead of printing moeny being sent only to individuals spending computing power, distributing the printed moeny proportionally to the held amount by each holder and to all the moeny holders. and amount of such moeny is
      • valued in Dcoins and periodically, printing moeny or taking tax of (export-import) * factor.

p2g4p (peer to group for peers): anonymity (for the other but not for the sys) in 1st degree of communication, such that the id is "known" only to the regulating sys, where each message is sent only to the whole group and never between individuals in the sys. In p2g4p the id of the entity is either in sys (e,q) or out of sys (s,e,q). The q is used in the communication for letting the other communicating with the entity know at least the q and sys.

  • P2G4P (peer to group for peers) messengering and hierarchies
    • No Mail, but Yes Message
    • N is G and/or U, where G==group, U==user, N ==node
    • No U->U [for anonymity of U in G],but Yes U->(one or more)G->U [G only to all U(G) for transparency]
      • on Message delivery failure (e.g. as U is offline)
        • send "delivery failure notice" to the G(G), as the up most G are mirroring of the G below being server, (hence such server is lazy server, which is busy only on failures of the p2p and such hierarchy could also match the dept in holding), so that the G on the failure will send to all its U request to swap the offlined one.
    • The group has pubkey of each user and send to each user only encrypted by corresponding pub key. The group never has the plan msg stored - if stored then only encrypted by the pubkey. The user shake hands before sending to group . the group of children groups has all pubkey used by children groups.


  • e.g.:
    • monthly ticket: i ask my handy, where and when (now) is the nearest pack of tickets from which at least one is available to my destination and for how long then i can hold it and after holding where to put the ticket for reuse again ?
    • in the same way share ride on rented car and rent your car for sharing etc.
    • Spare Part of any thing car, fridge , washing machine etc
    • recycle unused objects closes, food or any other objects et
  • why comcom?
    • because on big scale and with alternative competitive units and non mafia/big-commercialized organizations (which are hierarchic), how could we trust each other on this?

ComComIsm or COMCOMISM :) ?
By namzezamnamzezam, on 10 Aug 2009 04:54 history Tags: comcomist

~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing adblockplus.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License