Bitcoin Forum

Hi everybody,

In a rapidly changing world, we strongly believe that more and more governments will consider to adopt some kind of crypto-currency. Most likely they will create one of their own and that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Even when sometimes we like to look down on our governments, they also do a lot of good. But let's not go into that. In this topic we would like to concentrate on how a government issued crypto-currency could support it's fiat currency! And we would like to hear your thoughts about this!

As a hypothetical example, let's consider the Kryptodollar.

The idea of a US government issued crypto-currency doesn't sound crazy at all. Most likely it's being developed already. But suppose all of us would get a chance to contribute to its development, what would we add? Which features would we like it to have? What could turn it into the most democratic crypto-currency ever created? How could it support the US Dollar, and vice versa?

So let's brainstorm a bit on this subject and see what we come up with? :-)


PS: This survey is supported by Karen Hudes (http://www.kahudes.net), former senior executive at the World Bank.

Join BUG'M, our Bitcoin User Group in Magdeburg, Germany here: 
http://www.meetup.com/BUGM-Bitcoin-User-Group-Magdeburg

The point of crypto currency is decentralization.
If you add the government into the equation, you lose the essence of crypto currency. It will be centralized and controlled again.

If you look at it from another point of view, it shouldn't have to be like that, not necessarily.

Try to think about a crypto-currency that is interesting enough for both government AND the people.

Something like that could go far, given the proper intentions of both parties.

What survey ?  Is this the survey ?


Karen Hudes does great work , i love that she has a net net positive outlook , there is a lot of doom {not the currency} in economics these days as the fiat system collapses under the weight of its own debt issuance corruption.

It takes a more enlightened individual to see though to the obvious flaws of some of these end of the times scenarios.

Having said that its likely in one way or another a lot of people are going to die.

as a follower of Karen's ideas ; and a believer in the positive

I have a few questions;

1. Who will be the issuing Authority?

2. I assume the design will be an " to economy" inflation design , say for example the exists enough for the needs, if not would it be deflationary as is BTC.

3. If the issuing authority is actually " the Government" and the topic writer isnt just confused, how to deal with the transference of political power ?

3a. "The government" couldn't control and still can not control the largest financial institutions,  how can it issue a Cryptocurrency?

4. How would emission be handled , if the issuance is done centrally ASICs would supposedly secure the network, it will be a 100% pre mined with a set inflation target ?


**
In before Anonymint and Vlad : D

I think it will run into something I like to call ,

"The law of multidimentional competitive information continuance. "

Its kind of a slippery slope, it takes in to account political aspects , but vastly limits some actions, having said that ive been wrong in the past on this stuff .

How do we say " adversity is the mother of invention" .

i thiu ght the ideA was to put currency creation in the hands of the people

BOO!

Whatever is in the interest of the government is not really in the interest of the people.
They don't really care about us (most of them at least).

Government is not the problem. 

So what is?

Lets invite Karen here to explain your question , I have bad general english skills and I dont feel I'll get the point across. 

Is Karen in the house ?

Who is Karen?

Yes, this is the survey. Or maybe let's call it an open discussion :-)

We will pass these questions to Karen.

As we're talking about a crypto-currency, I guess we should define what "control" really means in this case.

It would have to be very different from the (so called) control that governments currently have over fiat currencies,
especially since we cannot (and shouldn't) change the original nature and philosophies behind crypto-currencies.

So perhaps the question is: how much influence on a crypto-currency would you accept from a government?

Can we imagine a solution where a government would accept not to own all the coins?
If the crypto-currency is democratic, they should allow for decentralized mining, but would this be an option?
I will add this to the list of questions for Karen, as she is probably more suited to answer this.

As for dedicated hardware like ASIC's, perhaps a more affordable mining solution for a broader audience would be better?
That brings us to the encryption algorithm. Maybe scrypt is more democratic than SHA256? Or maybe there is another option?

--
Join BUG'M, our Bitcoin User Group in Magdeburg, Germany here: 
http://www.meetup.com/BUGM-Bitcoin-User-Group-Magdeburg

We believe there is a promising future for a lot of different crypto-currencies, issued by both the people and the governments. The question here is: how can we make a government issued crypto-currency democratic, or in other words accepted by (the majority of) the people?

Sometimes we all feel like this, but in this topic of discussion we would like to find out
what "we" (the people) would accept as a government issued crypto-currency.

Suppose we would have a say in how such a crypto-currency was
built, which features would we like or need it to have?

We will ask for her feedback about the questions that we already have.

Karen Hudes (http://www.kahudes.net), former senior executive at the World Bank.

Ok thanks for that clarification ,  but with all due respect unless guidlines are put in place really a "cryptocurrency" could literally be anything , it could be existing without a blockchain , it could be Corporation issued as is the USD it could be "Government issued" .

obviously perhaps that is your intention to discover , I really hope it goes back to some sort of a Kernal of a proposal and i will be uber interested to see the results / progress .

Here is my general advice

I think that you will find that tolerance is fairly high .

 if a government issued cryptocurrency was instituted weather it be a stop gap emergency instrument that then developed into an offical currency or,  a preemptive issuance and some sort of integration.

 if the currency is indeed equitible and serves the purposes of SME, ( the drivers of velocity in relation to " price" and " standard of living " ) .

And if the issuance is obviously pegged back to the principals of a "PoW" and  protected against fraud " unlike fiat systems which are based on fraud" .

People will not generally understand of course unless they educate themselves , but they will be tolerant.

Wouldnt it be a nice " conspiracy" if the actual rational actors inside some of our government institutions were thinking ahead and thinking about national security .

Wouldnt it be nice if that resulted (in whatever way ) into a more equitible general system, which accoring to my calculations can only happen in the current information environment .

Then as per the " principal of multidimensional information continuance" the system must act inside the new information environment upon the new set of principals , this accoring to the principal then changes the environment and so on.

So indeed a system such as this could have larger positive effect than realized , and will be hard to game .

Follow up question id like forwarded :



What code , and will it be open source ?

^^^

We all know "governments" sensitivity around " privacy" and " domain" but I have to further advise cryptocurrency exists in a peer driven environment,  while  it is possible that a  Gov issued crypto could survive close sourced , it will be at a great disadvantage , possibly a grievously disabling one.

Obviously cryptocurrency exists due to the need for it , some of this is mistrust and loss of confidence in fiat in general ( well founded) close source may have little if any better confidence.  

In before Anonymint and Vlad

: D

Lol

I think the current fixed coin creation method wouldn't be flexible enough for a government. They would need something demand based coin creation with unlimited coins.

Possibility for double spending and creating "superblocks" on the fly if needed would be also essential :).

That puts here in a perfect position.  :D

Exactly. I don't really know why people keep coming back with the same concept over and over again.

Philosophical system aka paradigm that brought government to life is the problem. Govt is only a consequence of a problem. In this way this problem amounts to a question is diarrhea a problem if it's a consequence of cancer, which in turn is a consequence of malnutrition? Or is it only malnutrition that is the problem?

Most likely a lot of people would be in favor of open source, so could a government be convinced to choose this path?

As far as we can see, the Canadian MintChip won't be. Take a look at the following article for more info about the currency:
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/19/canadian-mint-pushes-ahead-in-murky-world-of-crypto-currency-with-mintchip-project

Maybe by now a democratic government understands that this might not be a good decision ;-)

Probably because governments won't disappear overnight.

Does a government issued crypto-currency automatically mean that it has to be centralized and controlled?
Maybe we can think of a more democratic solution that fits both the people and the government?

Basically yes , you seemed to have grasped this concept of problems and solutions. 

You are generally correct .

Have not read that , but it just makes me laugh ,

Come with me here educated people....


Headline may as well read :

We are an old and dieing system of " financial post"  we write things from a centralized perspective that supports our owners general narrative, which are the issuers of a centralized paper currency .

We will casually call "cryptocurrency" " murkey" and generally refer to it in a negative contextual framework,  we hope that in doing so , we do not look too obvious as we serve our rapidly dieing system for our pay masters .


Our overloads will often set up systems to fail , but unfortunately this is having a diminishing net effect , some other force is pushing , and we cant actually identify what it is , but we know its all wrapped up in that " internet" thing.

Meanwhile our rating keep slipping , and the charade of centralized authoritarian control over most or all information is becoming obvious as even some of our large sponsors not directly related to the central authority leave us and find support in other information systems .

This is unfortunately further leading us to appeal to different demographics as we struggle to hold o to a user base, but unfortunately this is also marginalizing us further .

As we can not disconnect from our centralized source , we can only " wrap " multidimensional information in our centralized narrative , which is soon ignored as it has little  competitive effect.

See my non existent white paper entitled :

" Principals of multidimensional information continuance"
Sub
" effects , systems , and how and why you should stop giving a fuck, and love your fellow man"

It effectively outlines in some parts the relevant " handshake " that needs to occure between two principally very different systems , now as we know handshakes dont occur over night , and for no reason , but lets say they more or less mesh into each other .

In this mesh , or mesh occurance , there will be a point of equilibrium , thats where the handshake occures .

But before all that a lot of information gets passed back and forth .

 Would humbly suggest the mesh has not began we are not in , or we are in a very early stage of a mesh type information collision towards a handshake .

But each vector is trying to negotiate from a position of influence obviously.  

Its not really " the government" or the " the people " as much as ;

What is " government"?

What is " people " ?

Ahh this is fantastic , this " Mintchip"  see here , this we should all support , in the same way we support Facebook getting old uneducated into a more modern for of information vector .

Mintchip will be an AOL type beautiful failure , but not before it brings the idea of decentralized currency to the poorly educated and information starved .

Will the net effect be great ? , no not according to my calculator here , but however its a step towards that handshake .

I for one support the Mintchip!

** and it sounds so tasty !

Oh dear ,

Im just reading those comments on the Financial Post there .

This is of course the information that flows if it is not censored , I have to say I think the Finacial Post needs to get someone in there ha ha and start censoring all those comments that talk about " decentralized systems" ha ha , I mean they are getting voted up by other humans and this is causing the " conceptual human narrative " to be push in this direction.

Why this is bad for the Finacial Post is that generally they have to remember "  stick to their centralized narrative" , so they should censor these posts less they risk a " seperation of narrative information" ( see my white paper) .

But wait....

Oh if they censor then they will be known Inside the " information environment" to not pass on " information feedback" , this is like a brains neuron not passing a signal .

( see Tesla )

Then that would cause  the generally  negative effect that the " Finacial Post"  multidimensional information aspect would have stopped functionality effectively meaning they would cease to exist in  this , or that dimensional " fork" .

So I guess in actual fact , id have to take back my original comment and say , the best that that could do under the circumstances would be to , censor some posts , and try to create a fake positive centralized narrative .

( see " wrapping multidimensional information into a centralized narrative" )   《 mesh will begin when this uses all the energy that is available to the existing information system .

*CorruptDollar

This is a good example , but if you just take away the specific criticism of the President as he is not the unique part in the overall equation :


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bPIsjH25GHo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbPIsjH25GHo