Bitcoin Forum

A new complementary currency, the Occcu, falls under the category of a “basic-income currency” which is like a form of social security paid to all individuals.  About the only thingOcccu has in common with Bitcoin is that they both can be traded person-to-person online.
 
A promotional flyer for the Occcu describes it as “a fair global currency”.  To prevent hoarding the Occcu imposes “demurrage” (negative interest).  You’ll want to spend your Occcus right away as anything you don’t spend loses its value — 25% of any unspent balance after thirty days goes back to the community chest.
 
The currency can be spent from a mobile through the web interface.  Paper checks are available but simply act as a receipt for the payment recipient to hold until the sender manually enters the information at a later time once connectivity is available.
 
The currency was introduced at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos.
 
The name Occcu comes from OCCupy-CUrrency, a currency that would be desirable to (some/many in) the Occupy movement.  Users registered with the Occcu.com website receive a chunk of the currency during sign-up and will receive the basic-incoome allotment monthly.  The Occcu website lets registered users view and place ads for trade, make payments and P2P transfers.
 
It is not apparent yet how counterfeiting will be prevented as currently a single individual can create multiple identities and receive the full basic-income for each.
 
There have been calls from some individuals for Bitcoin to be forked or to be superceded with an alternate blockchain to introduce features such as demurrage.  Many Bitcoiners are attracted to Bitcoin specifically because its current economic properties.   The the software could technically accommodate these changes, buy-in would need to come from these individuals as they hold the power to refuse to switch to software the devalues the currency they hold.
 
However just as Bitcoin was the catalyst for the conversation on various aspects of money the Occcu will likely cause further conversation as well.

Why not use Bitcoin?

Some dweebs are mining OCCU as alt cryptocurrency on their CPUs and issuing it (the OCCU, I mean) to OWS women they like.

Seems strangely quiet on who gets to issue this new currency.

As if I can't guess.

I was wondering why there wasn't already a thread on it. Perhaps everyone that saw it died laughing.

What's to prevent a person from making two accounts and spending the coins by transferring them between accounts every four weeks?

So, hyperinflationary currency is what occupiers want?

This is just crazy. We need some sanity in this world not more spending and buying stuff we don't need.

And what's with the monthly basic-income? I don't have to do anything to get that currency? What's the value of it then if you can get it for free? This is a very strange idea to say the least.

That is the way occupiers think (and no I am not joking).  They believe the state owes them simply for existing.  If the state doesn't have enough money to give everyone a monthly income, education, healthcare, and retirement well they can just confiscate more wealth from the suckers who actually work.

"Money for nothing and your chicks for free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXDjiKVs2U

This is a very strange idea to say the least.

That is the way occupiers think (and no I am not joking).  They believe the state owes them simply for existing.  If the state doesn't have enough money to give everyone a monthly income, education, healthcare, and retirement well they can just confiscate more wealth from the suckers who actually work.

"Money for nothing and your chicks for free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXDjiKVs2U

That also goes for bankers that suck at business but want to be bailed out anyway.

So the occupiers are just as bad the banksters they just aren't as good at getting free money. 

BTW it is possible to think both the bankster and the occupiers suck!

About the only thingOcccu has in common with Bitcoin is that they both can be traded person-to-person online.

That is the way occupiers think (and no I am not joking).  They believe the state owes them simply for existing.  If the state doesn't have enough money to give everyone a monthly income, education, healthcare, and retirement well they can just confiscate more wealth from the suckers who actually work.

"Money for nothing and your chicks for free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXDjiKVs2U

It happens frequently to spoiled brats

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/American_Left_160.jpg

Seems like absolutely nothing. :)

Occcu is just plain silly.   If for some reason people started to use it, they would have a huge problem with people registering multiple (hundreds??) of accounts for free money.  It would not be rare so it would become worthless (just like it is now).

The reason community-based economic systems always end in failure is that they rely on everyone being decent and honourable.

I don´t think so because "being decent and honourable" is only a question of transparency. If the system is transparent then it is impossible to cheat.

I see the OCCCU as basic income to pay the lot of small things which will need every day for example food, rent, clothes, cinema, concerts and more.

I meant "economic systems that work to keep everyone identically wealthy". 

I work hard, someone else sits around making hippie songs nobody gives a shit about.  We both should be compensated equally.  Well if that is the case, fuck the 50 hour work week, fuck the continual skill development on my part, fuck the stress of managing an enterprise database.  I will write hippie songs nobody gives a shit about (and likely do a worse job than the guy in the comparison).

Most great inventors don't give a damn about money. They tend to be easily exploited by Capitalist hippies that sit around the pool collecting dividends. The real hard work of Capitalism is the lawyers that sue startups over patent infringement.

Sure, some innovation is done by greedy inventors, but original ideas tend to come from people not interested in money itself.

You build a system (even perfect) where the "slices" are even and you have broken the linking of work/assets/capital and reward.  There is no reason to be better because even if you are your slice isn't going to get any bigger.

For the sake of argument I will say your right (although I disagree).  Without capital most ideas go nowhere.  How does one acquire capital ... by working harder (or having a ancestor who worked harder).  Yes even people who acquire wealth through fraudulent or dubious means had to work at it.  A system where acquisition of wealth is impossible because everyone's share of the pie is equal means no rich greedy investors to "exploit" inventors by bring products to market.

Even when inventor is "exploited" by Capitalists the system is made stronger.  Quality of life for the aggregate population improves due to access to new and improved products & services.

Democracies aggregate capital through taxation and choose progressive commons based on the best information available to improve the (theoretical) quality of life for the many. I'll defer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out the usefulness of a baseline of equality. Besides, the system is broken and there are few ethical occupations where one can aggregate any personal wealth anymore. It follows then that individuals that do manage to acquire capital are not ethical and should not be trusted to make decisions for the many.

So people who didn't earn money via buerocratic processes will more efficiently aggregate capital and match industrial needs with available resources.  Maybe with a utopian artificial intelligence but not with humans.

I have managed to acquire wealth so by your definition I am unethical.  Kinda a broad brush you are painting with.

Still I am glad you posted it.  You are a statist.  You belief the state can be the answer to all problems.  Even when the state creates problems by disrupting free markets the solution isn't freedom but instead even more power to the state.  With people like you that thinking will never be broken.  It will always be "well if we give the state more power, more money, more resources, and more of our freedom it will work".  When it doesn't work the "solution" it give a little bit more.

Neither do "the people" require democracy to be free.

Anyone at any time.  Wrap your head around that yourself.

Please give an example of such a people.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
     - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Still I am glad you posted it.  You statements show you are a statist.  Your belief is the state can be the answer to all problems.  Even when the state itself is the source of the problem, the "solution" among statists isn't freedom but instead building an even more powerful, infringing, wealth destroying state. 

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
      - Janis Joplin

Democracies aggregate capital through taxation and choose progressive commons based on the best information available to improve the (theoretical) quality of life for the many. I'll defer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out the usefulness of a baseline of equality. Besides, the system is broken and there are few ethical occupations where one can aggregate any personal wealth anymore. It follows then that individuals that do manage to acquire capital are not ethical and should not be trusted to make decisions for the many.

Ronald Reagan said "socialism will only work in two places: heaven where they don't need it; and hell where they already have it".

Isn't hell more of a fascist dictatorship?  How is it socialist?

Fascist dictatorship and socialism aren't mutually exclusive.  One is a system of governance and the other an economic model.  If you want to get meta then pain is the currency of hell and it will be shared equally.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
     - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Even if there is no cheating, no corruption, no flawed human behavior I would argue that the above goal is beyond stupid.

I work hard, someone else sits around making hippie songs nobody gives a shit about.  We both should be compensated equally.  Well if that is the case, fuck the 50 hour work week, fuck the continual skill development on my part, fuck the stress of managing an enterprise database.  I will write hippie songs nobody gives a shit about (and likely do a worse job than the guy in the comparison).

Multiply that by billions and global GDP declines on a massive scale. 

People shouldn't be compensated equally because talents, skills, productive capacity vary.  Capitalism is horribly flawed but it is the best system to match the needs of the population with the talents/assets/capital of the population.

It works because it doesn't require you to look out for the common good, nor does it expect you to.   Companies engage in brutal "combat" and to emerge victorious requires a better product, or better marketing (which is another product), or better prices (= production efficiency).   The entire system is made stronger because talents, resources, and capital flow to where they have the most benefit.

Sure division of that "pie" is uneven but Capitalism makes the pie bigger.  The "poor" today have a far better quality of life than say as a poor serf in the Middle Ages.  Their slice of the pie is smaller than say Donald Trump but the pie is magnitudes larger.

TL/DR version:
You build a system (even perfect) where the "slices" are even and you have broken the linking of work/assets/capital and reward.  There is no reason to be better because even if you are your slice isn't going to get any bigger.

Democracies aggregate capital through taxation and choose progressive commons based on the best information available to improve the (theoretical) quality of life for the many. I'll defer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out the usefulness of a baseline of equality. Besides, the system is broken and there are few ethical occupations where one can aggregate any personal wealth anymore. It follows then that individuals that do manage to acquire capital are not ethical and should not be trusted to make decisions for the many.

I very much disagree.  If I only bought the absolute necessities, I could survive and save money, retiring on a modest income.

Fact is, all you need is food, clothing and shelter.  You don't need a car.  You don't need a 800 sq ft house (when 200 will do just fine).  You don't need children.  You don't need a cell phone.  You don't need cable, television, or internet.

Live in Detroit, where housing is incredibly cheap.  Sell trinkets on the internet, or get a minimum wage job.  You could get by on $300/month for all your living expenses.  The rest is money in your pocket, where you begin building wealth.

Building wealth has nothing to do with how much you make, and everything to do with how you manage the money you have.  If you believe you cannot build wealth with just about any ethical occupation, then you're not living your life in a way that facilitates building wealth.  In other words, it is YOUR fault you can't build wealth with those ethical occupations.

Spoken like a true republican that has never been poor a day in his/her life.

But what would happen if the advantages of Bitcoin would combined with the advantages of OCCCU ?

"Basic Income" is a reasonable idea.  Sometimes called citizen's income or citizen's dividend.  It goes very nicely with land value tax.

However; implementing it is a function of the state not of the currency.

Basic income as a dividend requires that the state generates a surplus. Some do, such as Norway.

Just imagine how much tax revenue is required to finance this: If 300 Million Americans get $500 each (not really a sufficient income), $1.8 Trillion would be required per  year.  Financing this with a tax on land would devaluate the land to the point that most morgage loans get canceled because the backing is no longer there. The result would be a default of the house owners and a subprime crisis of unprecedented proportions. Oh, wait - we can tax the farmers. They own a lot more land.

Don't get me wrong, I like Occupy and basic incomes, but the problems inherent to this concept are more practical than ideological. For any basic income, SOMEONE has to maintain a list of recipients. You need to verify that each person only has one account. You need to update the records swiftly when an identity gets stolen. Then, we have to trust that your organization won't be corrupted by power. Every single person you employ to handle all this is paid for by a regressive "inflation/demurrage tax".

We (the left in general) need to be supporting Bitcoin because it already works well and is still undergoing major upgrades. It is resistant to corruption unlike the Fed and any centralized currency. If your problem is hoarding and a deflationary money supply, EnCoin can use your help. If you want a basic income, it has to come from your government - consumers will not opt in to paying for it.

Basic income as a dividend requires that the state generates a surplus. Some do, such as Norway.

Just imagine how much tax revenue is required to finance this: If 300 Million Americans get $500 each (not really a sufficient income), $1.8 Trillion would be required per  year.  Financing this with a tax on land would devaluate the land to the point that most morgage loans get canceled because the backing is no longer there. The result would be a default of the house owners and a subprime crisis of unprecedented proportions. Oh, wait - we can tax the farmers. They own a lot more land.

As to "not hoarding".  That's just stupid.  There's nothing wrong with "hoarding"; it is simply deferred consumption.  e.g. I would like to have a car next year instead of a bicycle this year.  Or, I'd like two hospitals next year instead of one pedestrian crossing this year.  What's wrong with letting people choose when they spend?

And the next problem is that a lot of hoarding money will never see the money cycle again because the holder have so much money that they can't or want not spend it.

Anyway -- there is a lot you could argue about CI, but "needs a surplus" is not one of them.

Sure it is. You can create part of that surplus by eliminating all or much of the social benefits of today, including it's bureaucracy, but that is insufficient. Any basic income that deserves the name must allow people to actually survive on it. It must be paid from revenues (taxes, oil revenue....) it cannot be paid with debts.

It's a real bad dilemma. Increased productivity and more AI may well toss us into poorhouses without basic income (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)), but basic income reduces competitiveness. In the end, the future may really not need us.

Only way out I see is to keep the economy growing until we're ready. Spacesteading and Seasteading may do the trick.

First off, thanks for the interesting story - I got halfway through the first chapter before I realized it was fiction. :P

Back on topic - a basic income only reduces human labor by about five percent, which IMHO doesn't outweigh the benefit of a more just society, especially as robot labor grows and this penalty decreases. Maybe even when we have everything we need, greed continues to motivate the selfish.

A promotional flyer for the Occcu describes it as “a fair global currency”.  To prevent hoarding the Occcu imposes “demurrage” (negative interest).  You’ll want to spend your Occcus right away as anything you don’t spend loses its value — 25% of any unspent balance after thirty days goes back to the community chest.

signed up, still have 0 Occcus days later

Guess Occupy movement doesn't want me to have a Mincome.

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage :D

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage :D

I just imagined LoupGaroux's eloquent essays slowly degenerating into psy's crude attempts to smash his fists on the keyboard.  ;D

lol. Something like that. No I meant your status on the boards would degrade if you didnt keep posting. A hero member would eventualy go back to newbie status if they stopped posting for awhile.

It turns out they fail even harder than I thought, which is actually kind of an accomplishment.

First, they suspended demurrage for April, presenting this as a good thing. So even they don't believe their own bullshit philosophy.

Second, the email in which they announced this put all the recipients' email addresses in the To: line. So now I have the emails of everyone on their list. (link (http://www.bitcoinservice.co.uk/files/1216))

LOL.

Someone send them info about Bitcoin!

I'm trying to lend some of the occcus since almost the beginning, without fees nor interest rate, as they put on the slogan. But nobody seems interested. I guess I'll have to pay for somebody to take them? Even then, I can't see anybody would ask for them...

It seems like the way to win this game is to borrow as many occcus as possible to invest in the most valuable capital available, and then to just repay the loan with your BIG payments.  So, what is the most valuable capital available?  That's the catch, isn't it?  There is no capital is there...  I bet there are some pot growers reading this right now who could completely own the entire occcu economy...  You could borrow occcus to pay hippies to build... something... like... a pyramid?  Eh, I got nothin'.  This is epic fail.