Bitcoin Forum

What do you think makes for a good distribution of currency? And what currencies do you think have achieved a good distribution?

I can think of two main metrics that one might measure currency distribution in: percent of total currency held by individuals, and total number of individuals who hold said currency.

Another variable is time. And the speed at which the currency is dispersed through out a population.

How important is this to you? Is it an overrated factor, or is it something people underestimate the importance of.

It's an overrated factor. Most of the money ends up in the hands of a few no matter what the initial distribution is. You won't find an example in the world contrary to this statement.

Over time this would seem to be the case in any capitalistic market. Money makes money.

I think that coins like NemStake or Reserve Share made the most fair distributions. In these days i think the free distribution methods are the most trending, because it's easy to reach for everyone and by this way the cryptocurrencies can reach a wider range of people.
But also there's a problem with the lot of scammers and sockpuppets.

More merchant options might improve distribution

I don't think you can accurately measure the % of total currency held by individuals nor amount of individuals who hold currency. who knows how many wallets one user has their coins in. it's a false sense of an accurate measurement, in my opinion. best to just not use it.


i agree with devphp; i don't think distribution means much. it will always concentrate in the end


"fair" distribution is BS. it all depends on where you sit. if you got lucky and bought in early, distribution was fair. if you got in late, well then you might be crying "UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION!!" lots of people call NXT distribution "unfair", which is nonsense. anybody could have invested last year; only 73 did. i think that's as fair as it gets, though many would argue against what I'm saying.

I would say, provided initial distribution isn't massively skewed towards a small few holding the majority of the total supply, then any new currency should be reasonably fair, but over time it matters less. The problem with initial bad distributions is the market instability they cause, and for new coins, that's quite a problem.

PreminePlus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673760.0) has two methods of distribution. One is buying PMC and burning it for PMP. The second is signing up for the giveaway, which when signed up for, you continually receive funds from each month there's another giveaway.

Services actually decrease distribution, but they also serve a purpose to increase it. Gambling sites, on the other hand, I would argue cause a much higher decrease in distribution, as you wouldn't generally buy a currency just to gamble it.

Best distribution would be that it all gets handed to me as cheap as possible,

I think NEM has by far done the best with distribution. 

Most PoW coins, were good ole boys clubs with not very many people mining at first and taking lots and lots.

the Questions you ask is actually a fairly complex one, Quark achieved one of the best distributions in crypto existence,

you would have to go to my blog to fully understand : http://kolinevans.wordpress.com/ the reason i talk about it is because:

1. its important.
2. I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.  

but distribution is a simply a % numbers game, it is also very important if you only listen to one thing listen to this:

all crypto are very badly distributed in % terms  

the game is to make them look like they are not though, but the only ones you can know have any measure of distribution are PoW systems with certain parameters.

so there is a rule set, is what i'm telling you.

all PoS (only) i.e no or day PoW systems or IPO have near zero distribution in % terms so that is to say our friend there talking about NEM  the large % is probably held by 10 people.

now pause..

yes it's that bad.

it all depends on how genuine your question is and how much you want to learn.

you can learn a little or if you want you can learn a lot, but generally don't try to come to this forum for answers, unless the person answering has a large enumerate number of posts. (and even then)

Regarding Trading/investing

if you are serious about trading / investing and not losing money its very much in your interest to cut though the thick layer of bullshit that will be loaded onto your screen here and learn about distribution because it is over the medium to long term your bread and butter.

I.e if you have an understanding of distribution and 2. know how to buy low, you won't lose money.

There is a natural distribution (nature/-al, found in nature, in similar phenomena eg. sizes of rocks, or population of cities under certain constraints) of money and it is observed in these projects as well. In presence of unhindered trading/liquidity, and unhindered fungibility, the distribution of any monetary coin tends to this model.

Power law + lognormal distribution

- Power law means that the nth position has approximately 1/n that many coins as the 1st position.
- Lognormal means that when we arrange the holders to logarithmically same size brackets, the distribution appears normal (ie. "bell curve").
- The point where lognormal changes to power law is approximately 3% from the top, so that power law applies to the top tail.
- Consider an example of a coin that only has 100 owners, and their ownership is distributed according to the model. I have taken the 3 whales each separately (in the purist example they own 1000, 500 and 333 coins respectively, but statistically we cannot conclude that with a high degree of confidence), and the rest form a lognormal distribution as follows (number of coins in brackets) number of owners in bold:


(256-1999) 3 <- the whales are here but there is no confidence how many coins they own, because of the small sample
(128-255) 5 <- the lognormal part begins here, with higher confidence when brackets become larger
(64-127) 11
(32-63) 20 <- average holding is 54 coins
(16-31) 23 <- this bracket forms the lognormal midpoint with highest point density (in log), and also hosts the median, 23 coins
(8-15) 20 <- the highest linear point density is here and below
(4-7) 11
(2-3) 5
(1) 2


This is the distribution that is reached when the market dynamics are lead to function. The actual scaling parameters of the normal distribution may vary.


Let's check how the coins are distributed in deciles (10%s) of people. (Total number of coins is 5404):
1st decile: 54.7%
2nd decile: 14.5%
3rd decile: 9.6%
4th decile: 6.7%
5th decile: 4.9%
6th decile: 3.7%
7th decile: 2.7%
8th decile: 1.9%
9th decile: 1.2%
10th decile: 0.6%.

I omit the details for now but I superimposed the distribution in an excel table and actually reconstructed all the 100 coins owners with their balances. Then it is easy to calculate who owns what.

Now, this is the natural distribution. Actually this is a quite nice, middle-class one, because everybody owned coins (nobody was in debt), and even the minimum coin holding was 1 coin, which is "only" 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the largest holding, 1000 coins. (In Bitcoin, a holding 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the largest one would still be considered very large).

From economic standpoint most of the wealth goes to the top holders always, and it is good, it is called "capital formation", without which there could be no initiatives except ones that require no capital. There is no coercion needed or hopefully allowed.

Almost 20% of the coins belonged to 1 person. If the economy is as small as 100 people, this is optimal economically. It is larger than 66% least-holding people combined.

If things need to get done, there needs to be different size stakeholders. One person cannot do all, and collective initiatives without stake leadership seldom succeed. If the top stake is much larger or much smaller, the economic incentives are probably not correct. (Too large a stake might discourage newcomers, too distributed holdings imply loss of leadership and invite attackers).

We could argue whether it is fairer to give money to people who, when left alone, exchange the money for something they need more. We can give money, but we cannot give wealth. If they are allowed to spend the money, they do. If they are prone to keeping the money, they are not subjects of this question at all.

This is getting long, hopefully the discussion can continue. In my next message I will try to expound the practical problems why money should not be generated out of nothing, the importance of inflation and how it should be done, and more.

ahh poor Gary he ended up being the pawn on the chess table.


yeah the Soviet system was no different to the "Western" system of hypocrisy except now the Russian form of "e-democracy" is achieving things that  both systems couldn't do before.

at the heart of that is monetary reform in degrees of course.

fair distribution coins (with markets) ... That's the ticket!!!!



premine, comm, bct, bcc

want some ... no?  why not?

Fucking humans.  
Given them FREE and FAIR money ... "dump it mate as quick as you can" ... they trade it all in for a coin 95% controlled by 10 accounts.  

Some will even kill you for a few scam coins (or 'whale coins' if you prefer).  

This distribution phenomena is hated when seen in fiat$ and Bullion.  And it is universal in that realm.

Crypto was going to solve this problem with FREE and FAIR money.  Yeah, man.  

We could never really test it academically until now.  
Now you can earn a Ph.D researching what crypto has proven about money.

FREE and FAIR money ends up (very quickly) in the hands of just a few.
conclusion: Fucking humans  :(

MYTH BUSTED


_{Note :  I still advocate fair initial distribution, cuz gotta keep trying to live the dream.  Maybe someday we'll get it right.}  

I believe in the right to save. So there shall be no rules that limit your buying more coins.

I believe in the right to spend. So there shall be no rules that prohibit you from dishoarding your coins.


If these rules are observed, the market tends towards the natural distribution found in my previous post. Most people find it expedient to have some money, a smaller fraction wants to have more, yet smaller yet more, and in the top are the businessmen. The cohort of needy people who would like to have more money but in practise spend it all, is also present.

Getting to such situation is, however not easy. Not at all.

There needs to be a mechanism to create money. Aside from physical mining, digital mining is now introduced. Money can also be created by fiat, out of thin air. Banking cartel uses debt money, which is only created when someone wants to be deeper indebted (typically governments, because businesses and people have for long understood the ploy, but the banksters control the governments).

Then there needs to be a mechanism for initial distribution. Mining distributes the currency to the miners. Mining is a competitive business, and economically it should be treated that miners always sell at the going price (http://miners always sell at the going price). If this does not happen, the reason is that the miner wants to keep the coins, so in this context he should be regarded as an investor and the coins as savings. Still, mining has an effect of distributing the coins much better than the alternative, IPO. IPO is in my opinion not valid for coins at all, because it forces later comers to buy from earlier investors, creating a pyramid scheme. Third possibility is to determine some criteria for people, who so become eligible to receive coins for free. This is a great idea.

We need economy. Basically the larger economy, consisting of all financial, trading, dealing activity, plus real world contracts, settlements, retail, commerce, whatever, the faster and better the dynamic optimal distribution is obtained. Size of economy is often quantified with # of transactions per day, which is however a lacking metric, because some transactions are economically much more valid (transfer of ownership, settlement of contract, payment) than others (mixing, gambling, internal, pool payments). With proper econometric research, we could quantify the economy better.

A special case of economy is coin exchange. Having much volume there can be achieved without much economy by tricks called hype, pump, fud, dump etc., but a low volume of coin exchange is a sure sign that there is not much economy either. The market cap is determined solely by the exchange, and not by the economy, so it is a misleading indicator of a coin's success if in a midst of a pump.

*-*

The Initial distribution produces coins either constantly (mining), once-for-all (IPO) or gradually (claimable coins). The work of the Coin economy designer is to think how the economy gets towards the Dynamic optimum state from the unoptimal Initial state.

@R pie

Dynamic optimum state: my gut says, We will know this ratio with even greater scientific understanding in less than 24months.  Applicable to nearly all human economies.  From the village to the whole planet.  

Dynamic optimum state = X

But I don't expect much more than a slight variation of the deciles model you're already presenting.

unoptimal Initial state:  hard to prove, doesn't matter.  In the case of Alt coins we see 'hidden'/'ninja'/'instantant' mining by the '3' whales -or- free-fair distro -or- anything in between.  All gravitate to this Dynamic optimum state.  But as a matter of principle and method of measurement -- I like -- distro determined by commonality criteria (your Third possibility).  Give the coin to certain communities/tribes.  Coins for boys.  Coins for girls.  Coins for fat people.  Coins for teenagers.  Coins for smart people.  Coins for dumb people.  Coins for robots/AI.  

Even a coins for all the people.    

again & again & again & again
we will observe

Dynamic optimum state = X

--
Now it is a semantics game.  

'optimum' can be replaced with 'natural tendency'.  Humans could change this behavior pattern.  How is simple.   An algo to manage and enforce a different Dynamic optimum state.  No thinking required the algo does the busy work.  Just change 'X'

I'd like to see this game be played a few times.  Just for fun to see what happens.

In my example, the 1% largest owner = The One-Percent owned 19% of the coins and the 10% largest owners = 1st decile owned 55% of the coins.

The reality in real life and in coins is actually even more pronounced. The research I have made with XMR distribution have lead me to conclude that the One-Percent owns minimum 35% and up to 55% of coins, and the 1st decile naturally even more.

And guess what - I believe that in other altcoins the situation is yet more concentrated, with very few large stashes owning most of the coins. This is due to the imperfect initial distribution (IPO, for example), and insufficient time in the exchange to build the "middle class". These coins may also lack the reason to buy it in the first place.

In theory the matter could be unoptimal to the other side also. If we assumed a coin that was strictly only distributed to people in a certain area, for example, and did not have any mining or anything, then the deciles would not form properly and in the beginning there was no economy, and the coin would likely die, but if it magically stayed alive, it would likely be very concentrated. Making a DOA unpumpable coin is not in anybody's interest, however.

Darkcoin

A significant number of whales that have skewed the wealth distribution purchased their coins in April & May, then again in August when people were giving everything away throughout alt-coin land.

Top 300 Wallets: total held in all wallets by month they were created, and still in existence:

*Jan-14: 146,000 DRK (DRK launched 18-Jan-14)
*Feb-14: 175,000 DRK
*Mar-14: 315,300 DRK
*Apr-14: 524,200 DRK
*May-14: 522,500 DRK
*Jun-14: 332,900 DRK
*JUL-14: 96,300 DRK
*Aug-14:713,855 DRK
*Sep-14: 125,624 DRK

Total: 2.94m DRK [~63%]

Outside of the top 300, 900,000 DRK (~20%) is held across 900 Master Nodes to prove they are not an army of men in the middle (financial barrier).

* top 300 wallets 63%
* Master nodes 20%

Compared:

DRK
https://i.imgur.com/3aisNGa.jpg

LTC
https://i.imgur.com/KjgCB6R.jpg

BTC
https://i.imgur.com/Gn376FP.jpg


Detailed review of DRK distribution

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=778616.msg8776081#msg8776081

actually quark essentially solved the problem by having a fairly short (or reasonable) PoW period + a PoW that can't be monopolized this all equals an effective market price as each "human" does not trust the other.

so the base price is found, this i say is a very basic principal, most people would understand this, its just that here the "IQ" bar is very  "low", for such things.

What do you think of MYR richlist (http://birdonwheels5.no-ip.org/richlist/)?
I'm personally fairly impressed I could probably get in the 1000 richest addresses, and I currently hold only 4740!

send me a functioning link, please.

A guy named Pareto found the 80-20 rule. In many kinds of distributions, 20% of instances account for 80% of mass.

The distribution I generated for test purposes was a bit too fat in the middle. 20% richest hold only 69% of the coins. In the real life 20% richest (the 1.5 billion richest people) hold pretty much all the wealth. Especially considering that some have negative wealth, it may be that the 20% holds more than 100% of the wealth.

In cryptocurrencies, I posit that the actual percentage that the richest 20% owns, is 90-95%.

Provide the link that works with my computer, please.

Best distribution way is POW -- mining with GPU or CPU .

I have to say congratulations, this is the most amount of thinking Ive seen on this forum in a long time.

(I expect this is due the imminent realizations of the past month.)

With regards to your points however...

If there is a reasonably small (or prevalent)  monopoly on production or issuance, then the "mechanics" of the market break down to a "trust", human psychology will gear them to the greatest benefit making this:


Statement incorrect and simplistic.

They are not savers in this case as my definition described, they are by definition a "trust" of "price manipulators", and it is a large difference, if I save fiat money at the bank, this does not allow me to move the price of that nations money supply.

So a mining monopoly on a crypto distribution is a "broken federal reserve"

it is broken becasue the monopoly will not hold and  the system will collapse.

if you want to learn more :

http://kolinevans.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/answer-to-professor-david-yermack-how-the-quark-protocol-solved-the-economic-problems-of-bitcoin/

No not really. I've been doing this for 14 years now.



Despite reading your paper, I cannot describe Bitcoin's situation as a "monopoly on mining". All I know is that it is a ruthless competition of high-tech capital intensive ventures, with small profit margins for most except the best, and being the best is not cemented. As is the case in PCB industry in general.


Actually it does, and also in gold era it did. The difference is the relative size of the market.  We don't normally treat fiat currencies as something that we can hold several % of the issuance. If we did, we would command the corresponding power. Just refer to the rumors about China buying or dumping its hoar of U.S. treasuries.


I read it all, I was left wondering why Quark would be an answer to any of the problems (even if we suppose that the problems were identified correctly). All I know about Quark is that it was a hidden 100% premine and the following pump when it was published, just as the supply side had been heavily curtailed, and the resulting slide into oblivion. This has happened so many times that you'll really have to enlighten me concerning what is special about Quark.

indeed and i cover this, roughly the "first half" was a complete monopoly, you know this and anyone can prove it, then that "agreement" of price has lead to this situation which i would call a "stand off" in which large (mostly Chinese) manufacturers and private interests are call the bluff on "how important" Bitcoin is you the first monopoly.

so this is the breakdown in the monopoly if you go the the discussions page i'm referring to it in "humorous" terms all the time.

so you should understand (as you well do) this is the breakdown of the monopoly.

unless the first half now wants to buy the second half at the price it pretty much determined.

in which case, the price will hang steady like this as millions will have to go into it, (very unlikely)  considering that after that point the new monopoly still has all the power.

so this could be akin to throwing wealth away if at or near say 2 more halving one Chinese private interest owns 70 or 80% of the mining market.

thats a big flaw.  



Please trust me when i say i knew you were going to say this, so let me define that,  A single retail saver can not manipulate the price of money to their advantage, and if they can its a broken system, so we are talking about two broken systems.

Treasury bonds held by a state authority is a different thing of course.

but that comes back to the "monopoly" aspect.


Really? well there you go, I just assumed you understood and were trolling like all the others,  so you really don't understand the metric economic differences?

wow ok , well you should find them simple.

lets go though the points:

1.  Quark was distributed fairly quickly (6 months) and also listed fairly quickly on a lot of exchanges, but upon listing was quickly sold as there was no "trust" no monopoly, there was simply no available time for there to be one, why?

2. Because "Max" produced an algorithm that is still today innovative, it's not just the 6 hashes, but the 3 random functions, you see how quickly X11 was adopted to FPGA and ASIC.

so note this:

3. There was a imperative time factor, the random 6 hash + (6 months distribution) + the underdevelopment of ASIC hardware infrastructure at that time.

(lets summarize these 3 steps and see if you agree or disagree, then I will move forward)

-------------------------------------------

summary

The net result was an algorithm that could not be "cornered" by a few,  rather it was the domain of "Robots" and CPUs and maybe a few GPU's (but very unlikely), the reason for even the lack of GPU was again a time factor, by the time the Robots and CPUs had mined the early blocks they were furiously dumping it on the exchanges, (a beautiful thing to watch if you know what you are looking at)

So this even inhibited the development of a GPU miner there was simply no "incentive" at that time as the price was constantly dropping. ( the market working)

Then....

-------------------------------------------

4. We moved to a point of inflection where the price had been dumped quite a lot the price was near zero, large miners had dumped and buyers were buying, selling and generally a lot of the market was ignoring Quark.

5. Quark had reached its "base money' (version one), this is not "great distribution" but better than anything Bitcoin etc had even at this stage.

6. then I brought a moderate amount, this is just fact, and even if I had of brought a lot , it doesn't matter as it was a factor of the market I purchased it and paid market price, one can't supposedly believe in the free market and say "but you purchased them so low !" ( you see where i'm going with that?)  but alas i did get a moderate amount as I had absolutely no idea if Bill Still would introduce the second market to the entity.

7. He did and they started to buy, then hype and exuberance got high some in part as Max K got involved but not totally, some of it was due to large "interests" buying back in, people with large amounts of BTC.

8 This kind of  "damaged" the free market and it had to re-balance, but i was stuck i couldn't talk it down, only call for a bit of pause.

9 I sold almost none of my Quark ( a tiny amount) I actually gave much more away. ( because i still see it as a buy far below where it will go)


Summary.

now you have a fully distributed system that was dumped to zero at market, purchased got exuberant , dumped back down by the market, bottomed and now is returning to mean.

that is all fact provable.

the dumps you see on the monopoly crypto are "manufactured"  this is fact provable, if mining is controlled by a small entity they can dump, buy back wait, dump, buy back so on.

I can see how one can be confused, but the way to tell the difference is, look at the Quark chart, it trends, and also these movements will from now on smooth out, (this has all happened)

I hope you now know more than you did.

I don't "pump" because i know the economics, I don't care who buys this, it has long term fundamentals and I see the risks they are tiny, its not always the "technically best" or "biggest that survives"  

also the intensive trolling is very bullish, we have had these guys hired to pose first as "developers" then "core members" it's really great.

unfortunately rpietila there is more learning to be experienced ....

i was going to add this basics of this next bit to a blog but decided it was just too technical for any practical use.

i'm using general terms as i'm just going to summarize:


- the Quark protocol is universally decentralized in a neutral robust way.

- it is difficulty reversible. (very important) because Bitcoin and other monopoly are likely not.


So when and now as the difficulty hash increases in "work" and runs up on Bitcoin, this means practically resources are going to work with a future aim.

They are competing for a monopoly that's the prize,  the winner takes all in the monopoly contest.

So you see the (Three) factors here:

1. The initial monopoly.
2. The long distribution
3. The "flaw" in the algorithm conducive of specialization

(3rd) point is of little impact, there was no market at the start anyhow so its mostly 1 and 2.

These factors have meant that the prize is the control of the Bitcoin monopoly, but what happens if the market starts to work?

This is inevitable let me show you why:

1 monopoly + 1 competing monopoly = a market force.

so lets reverse the hash and difficulty, and then run that though "deep blue" and forward project what happens.

not good things rpietila.
not happy times.

if price collapses (the market)  many smaller private even medium miners lose faith.
but by this time they and the large holders have a lot of units they are sitting on.
They also have 60 70 - even 80% of the hash rate.
Some of them start to think about hedging, they start to move "BTC" to others systems fiat and alts. things get zany.

ultimately Bitcoin can survive that, because at the bottom there, the market will start to work as the smaller miners will come in when all hope is perhaps lost, they will be able to mine again the large miner will likely not disrupt this process (because it is to their advantage) and then they will attempt to slowly sell out, this means "base money" (Version one) for bitcoin.


contrast:


what happens if Quark rises in price, more miners come in and the network gets decentralized, but the EQ really holds no incentive for the market to try to monopolize it, and as it is that way now, the psychology of the market is a market, how do i explain this?

if Max said tomorrow we are going to fork Quark and try to make it even better for CPU and GPU, who wouldn't want to do that? see the market is made up of CPU and GPU.

of course out paid "disruptors" but they matter little, what matters is when BTC38 changes the wallet and the most of the clients holders and miners.

so you see Quark hash can rise and fall, it can fork and innovate, do you see that flexibility?

this all comes form full distribution, EQ reward and letting the market work.  

I hope this has been educational.

Maybe free giveaway to those who make contribution to this coin?

OK. Let's assume the system is in fact fully distributed (the distribution agrees with my natural/optimal curve derived in the previous posts).

It still has to gain new users if the aim is to make it more usable (more users also increase the price, which people generally regard as good).

How can it gain more users when it is fully mined. Where is the incentive?

(I don't mean that such incentive theoretically couldn't exist, and I acknowledge your explanation about the technical expediency. I just want to know what it is.)

If this is found so good, what is the impediment for starting it over, since from the standpoint of a new entrant it is 100% premined?

(Everybody calculates premine as something happening before the thing got his attention.)

I have long wanted links about research, how much inflation is needed to keep the blockchain secure (PoW).

Intuitively it seems that a fixed percentage is the way to go, becuase then the hashing (that protects against the attack) scales with the value stored (that encourages the attack). So as long as it's this simple, we should just find the percentage, and make the PoW supply that much but not more.

The "more" portion is the portion that the Coin's marketcap grows due to its network value. For example in Monero, many miners have received some revenue from their work, but the owners in general, haven't. The price is now the same as the all-time-average.

As I said previously, I don't believe PoW can be dethroned from its network-honesty keeping function. In my understanding, the NaS attack still lives on, and the abolishing of outside source of trust is what the cryptocurrency is fundamentally for.

But PoW might not be the optimal way for initial distribution, for the portion that it is not needed for blockchain security. It has just been adopted for this double-role.

You sound like a weirdo, which is not a good thing when I consider introducing anyone to your coin. :(

Can you imagine - they have said that to me! ;)


I checked that blockchain is hardcoded after 8 minutes. Have you thought that there might be connection problems much longer than that and your approach causes a permanent fork which is hard to amend. How is the capability of your designers?

When the 6 months of mining had ended, Quark's marketcap was $40k. If we believe this to be the rock-bottom value, it would mean that $222 worth of Quark was produced per day. Since it is difficult to mine a CPU coin and get less than $1/day, and you also mentioned "large miners" and "dumping", I deduce that the Quark community at that time numbered about 30-50.

Once this was pumped up to $70M marketcap, these people who were not qualified to handle such sudden wealth, started selling. The price has gone down ever since.

I don't have the volume data. XMR turnaround time is about 20 days, so it can be said that the stock revolves quickly. I believe if you show from exchange records that all QRK have changed owners many times. But without proof this does not sound credible. The graph looks exactly the same as any pumpcoin. I don't hold anything against you (don't know if you were the pumper, and it's not the issue, buyers beware).

My point is that the community potency is way different if it consists of forward-looking bitcoin whales buying their way into the top-3% holders (XMR) or nouveau-riche-and-then-poor-again idealists, and bagholders from the latest pump (QRK). The former wants to overcome all obstacles to make things happen, the latter is apathic.

All the money ever invested in QRK was the initial $40k in mining. Thus the current marketcap still contains plenty of air network value.

The current stack of Monero existing has cost $4M to produce. The network value in absolute terms is comparable to QRK.

This, and another thought concerning replacing PoW (burning of electricity) in the initial distribution part only, for the amount of emission that is larger that what is needed for network security. Now we have a lot of choices, and which one we should take is a matter of implementation rather than closed thinking.

- Proof-of-Burn (BTC). This has been tried, and afaik the result was not at all bad. A provable number of BTC was converted to XCP. The impact in the perceived value of XCP has definitely been very assuring. The impact on BTC, superficially as BTC was destroyed, the remaining BTC should be worth more. Actually may be the opposite - if XCP rose as a result, the market collective shifted some of the total cryptomarketcap to XCP from BTC and all the other BTC-holders suffered a loss. But if the advent of XCP was generally a strengthening, positive matter to all, it may be that both gained.

- Homework. How would the previous have been different if the Proof-of-Burn was digital or physical USD instead of BTC?

- IPO. We have a long history of IPO's and I don't like what I see. If we don't discard the premise (which I have done in the past based on my principles) but keep the mind open, there are ways to make the IPO legitimate and supporting the coin's future. (Largest problem with most IPOs so far is that the coin was chosen to be IPOed because that is the surest way for a dev to profit himself.)

For example there could be an incremental emission where money (practically: BTC) can to be sent to a certain address, and the coins are emitted daily and distributed in proportion to the money received to that address. The money can be used by the devs, burned, or given to charities that are not connected to the developers. This would very much resemble mining, but without any of the hassle, and everybody could participate, all the skill part would be reduced to zero etc. (I repeat that there would still be mining from day 1 to forever, but that would be only a percentage of that day's coincount, enough to maintain the network, but the actual "needlessly wasted electricity" would not happen, and the value created could be put to profitable use by this 2-way emission scheme).

- Proof-of-Desperation (PoD). I mention this as an example only that coins can in theory be distributed based on proof of anything of value, anything that comes with an opportunity cost. Such as sometimes people go to shops when there is a sale. That makes the shop become full of people, and it takes time and suffering to buy the things you need. The benefit is a lower price, and the economic calculation is in the savings relative to the costs, as usual.

What if we set up a coin where some part of the daily emission was credited equally to people who come to gather in an open space, with them having no access to electronic equipment? So all they could do is to chat with each other, eat their foods, visit toilet, and then in the end of the day the emission was divided to as many people who provably made it. From an economic standpoint this is similar waste of resources as mining with graphics cards, but this way we could make (some of) the coins go to desperate people instead, since the two ways of generating coins would hardly overlap.

I did not yet write the theory about the 3 classes of coinholders, but this would apply to the low class, whereas all CPU-only coins have failed this task, despite the best intentions.

The good distribution:

For the first few months, the mining reward is low, give people enough time to be familiar with the coin. The miner can be optimised to reduce the advantage of the owner of privately optimised early miners.

Then a linear emission of the coins, say fixed reward, for the rest of life of the coin. If we think the coin will be used in 100 years, then the annual inflation at that time is just 1%. Which can catch up with the economy growth and compensate for the lost coins.

MYR certainly deserves a place amongst the most well distributed coins. There was no premine and the coin has been free of scandals/scams/shadiness in general. It's easier to mine now than ever, and anyone with a PC could be mining significant quanities. And yes, it's very cheap now.
The downside seems to be a lack of direction and leadership. The devs are all competent enough, but it seems like each one is just working on his own pet project.

If Bryce Weiner pulls through on the Liberdade end, this coin could potentially explode. I think it's worth holding some just for that.

I have further developed the theory of optimal distribution. The general rule is that distribution should be as close to the power law + lognormal economic standard distribution as possible. The free market naturally tends to that outcome, so it is only a part of the optimality. The other part is quality.

Quality means that the large owners should be more established in other spheres of life also than small owners. A coin with large owners who are rich also outside the coin, hold positions of power in the old world, have connections, education and experience, has a much better future than a coin whose large owners are nothing and hold nothing except a large position in the coin in question.

If a coin's majority ownership consists of fanatics who have invested all their savings in the coin, this is not good. Such people cannot, for example, provide buy support to the coin in times of trouble because they are all-in already. Strong hands whose majority of assets is elsewhere, can easily buffer the fluctuations in the coin's value because they are not out of cash and not need to panic.

If a coin does not have sufficient trust and legitimacy, or is too illiquid, it may be that people who otherwise are in good positions, don't want to / cannot easily invest a meaningful amount. This leads to these otherwise valuable investors taking a suboptimal too small position, which does not allow them to do research, leading them to be weak hands, similar as the fanatics.

I believe that in altcoin investing, the best breed of investors every coin should try to attract, are the ones who invest at least 5% but not more than 30% of their net worth. These take the time to really learn about and support the coin, yet have also other resources that enhance their financial solidity. Smaller investors should of course be encouraged, because that is the typical way of becoming a large investor. Larger investments should imo be discouraged, except in case of people who have very little to invest and can easily recoup the losses even if they lost it all.


Then follows the 4 classes of coin owners, by quantity, but keep in mind the quality aspect when reading. The classes are fixed in number/percentage of people, and given an optimal % of total coins. The possible problems if the # of coins is greatly off the optimum are discussed.


First Class  - a few owners - optimum 30% of coins

In a coin with 1,000 total owners, the first class consists of 5 largest owners. For 10,000 total owners, the first class is the TOP-13 largest holders. For 100,000 owners, it is TOP-39, for 1,000,000 owners, it is TOP-116. The formula, derived from power law directly, is: [0.1798*(total owners)^0.4682]

Too much coins:
If this class owns too many coins, the problem of centralization is apparent. It is good to try to analyze the ownership from the beneficial owner pov - it may be even more concentrated. There should not be one entity or collective that can rule over the exchange rate, because if there is, the rate is most likely rigged in their favor.

From the economic side, having too large a stash concentrated at the very top, correlates with diminished activity at the lower levels. There is hardly a way to develop a decentralized economy if this is the condition.

My thesis is that this is the problem with most altcoins.

Too little coins:
This is also a problem, although I don't believe there is practically any examples of it in coins (Monero's problems of raising money even for basic development may be indication of this). If the coin lacks large owners, it lacks the leadership and backer of last resort. The backing of course assumes that the large owners have non-coin resources to back it.


Business Class  - 3% of owners - optimum 30% of coins

Too much coins:
Is not really a problem. The more coins the "lower nobility" holds, usually the better.

Too little coins:
This is a very serious problem because it indicates that there is lacking rich people / investor / business / speculator interest in the coin. This group of people is capable in developing infrastructure and services around the coin, so without this group or if it is deficient/inoperational, not much will happen.


Middle Class - 17% of owners - optimum 30% of coins

Too much coins:
That the middle class owns many coins is not a problem, rather an indication of widespread interest, but if excessive, it means that the upper classes may own relatively too little, cf. them.

Too little coins:
The lacking middle class is an indication that the coin does not have enough adoption, support or even speculation. I would say this is the worst problem, because the middle class is (among others) a very important testimony of community support, source of additional buys, and a marketing backbone. Also whether the middle class is apathetic (bagholders), passive (speculators) or enthusiastic (activists) is a great way to forecast the future of a coin.


Lower Class - 80% of owners - optimum 10% of coins

Too much coins:
Is a symptom of middle-classization (part of the people classified here as "lower class" actually belong to the middle class). In itself is not a problem.

Too little coins:
Indicates that many of the coin owners are in it with such a small stake that it cannot be counted as real adoption or support. This situation may arise eg. as a result of a giveaway distribution model. Does not really matter to the good or bad, but if this is the case, it would be good to rerun the analysis with cutting off a percentage of the dust holders to see a more accurate picture on how the actual ecomony is constructed.

Fairness in crypto is measured my equality when true fairness means people get out of something they are willing to risk on.


The fairest distribution was Qora. Simply have an open BTC address and proportional to how much you invest you have that level of risk.

Giving people free stakes on FB is not anymore fair than anything.

lots of responses thanks.

I will get back to each in time, now that I wrote that previous explanation I won't have to reply in such a long winded manner.


1. Definition of "fully distributed" = in this case was the mathematical fact that that the primary distribution occurred  in that 6 months period, so unless we are questioning the viability of the block-chain then we can't "assume" its a mathematical fact.

2. "gain new users" is an economic term all you are talking about is "wealth transfer" do these humans think our energy token is more viable at this time than this or that other energy token. (fiat paper included)

and example is Joe says he has lots of paper money he goes and sees bob the financial manager; rates are zero everywhere stock markets are topped, Joe is worried about his paper money (energy token) so he diversifies into some number of "fixed" assets he's not looking for dividends he is looking for first a hedge then a wealth transfer.

3. "starting over"  nothing, look around, but there is a complex set of rules that have to come together, they are not just mathematical rules, but human perception and sociological also.

totally disagree, re your "pre-mine" comment you are thinking very narrowly, in a very small narrow way, most real investors don't know or care what a "premine" is they just want to know that 15 guys don't own all the units above them, this is what Quark can provide.

you intrinsically believe that crypto will stay a tiny little Tech market of a few users that made wealth gains from Bitcoin (soon to be gone) and other crypto need to in some way pander to that base.

this is incorrect, the Quark base of holders does not care about Bitcoin holders, you can do what you want with that factually flawed system, but if you want to preserve your gains you can hedge or move to paper. ( or something else)

but what i'm saying is lets say you move a lot of BItcoin to Monero I'm claiming Quark is a better "reserve" base becasue i know the Monero base of investors is tiny.

so really you will just be living in the hope that the few large investors (you are likely one) don't cash out of your investment

with Quark that is patently not the case, there are undoubtedly large investors, but our distribution grows better each day i know this for a fact, our breakdown looks something like this:

Quark:

1. Speculators and Crypto tech savvy
2. Small paper investors (the long term winners)
3. Wealth movers, the people shifting wealth (few but growing)

Monero has:

1. The owners (the creators)
2. a few Bitcoin holders (yourself) that moved Bitcoin to it.      

As a followup to my previous post. This is the matter that's prohibited me from investing in altcoins before. Of course I don't like the "unfairness" of the premine, but in a free world anyone is free to premine as much as they want (if there is no lying involved). But the issue is that a premine generates an unworkable ownership structure.

We are now concentrating in the First Class. Here is a table on how much the top of the top First Class members should own, to allow an economically functional distribution in the lower classes also (with the most important being the Business Class, the highest 3% minus the First Class):


Coins controlled by one entity count as one. If the dev also holds coins in a trust, foundation, etc. they are added to his stash for the purposes of this. The functional limits are quite wide, though. I'd say the distribution itself does not present a problem if it is in 50%-150% in the optimum value presented above. Most coins probably fail even then.

Then we come to the quality of the owners. In the outside world at large, being in the First Class, or TOP-0.1% of anything, we are talking about people who have a net worth in millions of dollars, with homes in 3 continents, several people in their direct pay, etc. The USD TOP-0.1% consists of almost exclusively this kind of people. Having several such people in an altcoin's TOP-10 largest owners is a real asset. Lack of having even one is as real a liability.

bitcoin is best

darkcoin is second choice

that model will not work for a number of reasons, but it might be "functional" for a time.

i can expand on it later.

Do I really have to say this?

Alrigth one time: NE ---wait it´s coming --- M; NEM

Exactly, obsessive dogmatism here concerning "fair" distributions will always fall victim to human nature.

Bitcoin succeeded precisely because it was highly centralized among, let's say, 50 Early Adopters...
And these pioneers worked together to promote and build an amazing success story.

I'm only about 2 weeks into studying and trading NXT and it's assets...
But, wow, it's fascinating and a reasonable parallel to Early Bitcoin...
With, let's say, 50 major stakeholders *** pulling in the same direction ***.

That's not even the interesting part.

It's fair to say that the NXT Asset Exchange has achieved that elusive "critical mass"...
And has crossed that Magic Line into geometric growth?

Why?

Because of one visionary who has amassed roughly $10,000,000 in NXT Assets...
And got the ball rolling for everyone else.

You can slag any particular project of jl777...
But he has created The Blueprint for getting rich on NXT AE for the next 100 millionaires.

I didn't have time to read all the posts, but I did try to quickly skim the thrust of rpietila's first few posts on the first page of the thread.

rpietila, your analysis is only the constants that disappear in the first derivative, i.e. it is how the distribution travels to the savers that matters. That was a key macro economics insight of mine.

You are failing to view it as a dynamic system, which is why you don't support the historical higher rates of perpetual debasement. Nature will win, and your misunderstanding will lose. The only remaining question is who will create that naturally high rate of debasement going into the future, a decentralized crypto-currency or the centrally controlled fiat system.

Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence.

Yeah, like Satoshi Nakamoto :) I mean yeah, it's worrisome, but copying my post from another thread, if you're interested in a coin with a truely fair distribution, that would be Myriadcoin. No other coin features a more fair distribution through mining. But looking at how unpopular Myriadcoin is one cannot help but conclude that nobody is actually interested in fair distribution. Hence, all these thousand threads on fairness are completely pointless.

Hardly.  If more 'investor managers' showed up on NXT's AE, they would have to compete and outbid each other by promising higher dividends.

As well some of James' assets already have a capitalization bigger than NXT's total supply of 1 billion coins..  of course this begs the question as to how he can liquidate these assets back into NXT or Bitcoin without sounding the alarm

He can't. There are not enough buy orders for starters. That's why measuring market caps often makes no sense :)

What about litecoin?

The solution of course is perpetual debasement in a dynamic system where the majority of the money is always moving even if 10% is concentrated it doesn't remain with the same person for too long because the dynamic system keeps competition alive even amongst the elite (otherwise they become complacent, smug, or top-down directed), but how to make it popular is the key challenge...

...one would assume the savers would hate debasement, but they buy coins with very high rates of debasment because they expect appreciation...

...the math that computes the future value of a coin based on total coin supply is DEAD WRONG, refer to my prior post upthread about the math error that rpietila has...


The key epiphany is how to make fairness popular. ;)

AnonyMint will try to STFU now.

We talked about this somewhere, maybe Monero Speculation thread? Not sure.

In any case, a few of us developed an idea of liquidity-adjusted market cap. You count only the quantity (of shares, coins, tokens, etc.) that each individual holder could sell at a given price. The rest are not included. To actually calculate this requires transparent ownership records (including knowing which address might be owned by one individual or a group) of course, which isn't the case in practice. But as a concept you can reason about it or even estimate the number.

This is very interesting, AM. Reflexively, a fixed supply currency seems more "fair." If money is memory (proof of work, in a general sense), I want my contribution to society to be remembered forever, so that I and those close to me can enjoy the fruits thereof. But there is a competition between valuing past work and future work. Perhaps it is better for all if the value of past work is discounted gradually, so as to provide means to incentivize future work, on which civilization, innovation, and economic development depend.

Do you know the Borges character Funes? (pdf available here: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjsakon/FunestheMemorious.pdf) Indelible memory would be problematic; it leads to psychological congestion and exhaustion. Perhaps fixed supply currency is problematic for a similar reason--there is a value to forgetting (gradually).

The dilemma is not whether a wealth tax is "fair". It is. At a level of 2.5% (as the muslims practice) it can fund the poor and make sure that no one's wealth becomes larger than 40x his annual accumulation rate, which is pretty much.

The dilemma is that the old money favors to invest itself in places where there is no inflation or wealth tax. Without old money, the functioning of our new currency is in a questionable, untested basis. Can we create money that is not interesting towards the establishment, yet is interesting for us, so that we ourselves prefer keeping our wealth in our money, instead of the low-inflation alternatives such as real estate, gold, or BTC?

If you are not willing to hold a majority of your savings in this currency, who do you think would?

And this is coming from one who recently proposed a fixed-block supply model. So much for rpietila being a fixed supply proponent.   ::)


But it has to implemented with a clever PoW/somethingelse combo scheme where only the network security is PoW, and the rest is something completely different, potentially something that makes this coin the unique one.

Again you conflate taxes with movement in a dynamic system. Reductio ad absurdum.

Taxes are unsustainable because they feed the centralized beast.

The wealthy gladly pay higher taxes in jurisdictions where the profit or gains are higher.

Their "tax" could not be achieved via inflation, because gold cannot be inflated.

I am not sure if your critique is addressing my actual points (called "strawman").

I agree,Qora had a very good distribution and I didn't see any user claiming he didn't receive stake without any reason.

^

I tried to say what he basically said , but i tried to use a number of different English words, i think i failed.

The vector {unique} in the equation is found though a number of different factors combining together, so this statement is at best in error.

becasue its not a single factor that will make this or that entity the {unique} one, its rather that its fundamentals brought about the correct environment so that the market could work to effect the entity and make it the {unique} viable investment hedge.   

and, as i keep saying, a very large aspect of that {confidence} is found by NOT having a monopoly on production, also though you then need to have a viable information market.

all these things are very simple if we don't think like "crypto currency miners"

Your post proves a manifestation of the fundamental attribution error.

Within your post, you assume that one's propensity towards risk taking within the realm of their Bitcoin related finances is wholly (or, at least, primarily) due to what about them is begotten of their own selves. However, you did not demonstrate a sure knowledge of those circumstances and their being so wholly a result of these and not, to substantial degree, of others.

A starving man with almost no money takes more risk than a billionaire throwing pocket change at every IPO.

Reserve Share  ;D

10,000 World dollars (WLD) are being given out to everyone in the world, equally. http://www.world-dollar.com

Fair distribution indeed.

Everyone is uniquely identified via facial verification (short video). Coin Autonomy (www.coinautonomy.com) is the first issuer of World dollars.

10,000 WLD is currently being traded on Ripple trade (http://www.rippletrade.com) for around 0.025 BTC, so around 10 USD.

Do I live in the Great Empire of Earth?

ONE IS TIME AND ANOTHER IS PREMINE AND THE LAST ONE IS TOTAL COINS.

check here guys
new darknet, free distribution  ;) don't miss it  8)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.0

Back to the core of money creation

In the current fiat system, when new credits ("money" eg. USD) are created, someone takes an obligation to pay it back with interest. Since very little money is actually created "out of thin air", there looms a constant threat that the debt defaults cascade and not enough money is found to pay them all (there is not enough in existence). This would theoretically allow the bankers to seize all property of everyone, because typically people are citizens of countries, whose governments have taken debt from the bankers. As long as this grand theft does not happen, the bankers and their cronies are busy consolidating the natural resources of the planet, such as gold (already about 80% in bankster vault), land and water and mineral deposits, in their control.

What they have managed to accomplish, shows that there is a great network effect in money, which can be 100% pocketed to the perpetrators of the system. In coin terms, that is like an infinite premine to the devs, and people can only get the transaction medium by promising to pay it back with interest. All the benefits of the system, transaction fees, interest payments, etc. go to the devs. In aggregate, the rest of the users are just running deeper and deeper into unpayable obligations, allowing the devs to force a dysfunctional inhuman lifestyle (called the "western world") on them, plus the devs having the killswitch as well.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." -Josiah Stamp, Bank of England.

Seeking for alternatives

(Once again I assume that the network security will be maintained by a mechanism, the best of which so far is POW, so that the rest of the chapter is talking about the initial creation of the monetary stock only)


We have already outlined the alternatives, of which one is POW. This is similar to gold mining in the sense that new units of money can be created by (theoretically) anyone, but the marginal cost of production of money is so high that the benefits for doing it should optimally be only comparable to the benefits of engaging in any other industry.

The initial distribution with POW has the issue of fixed supply. This is not economically without problems. With gold, if the purchasing power of gold rose, it encouraged more mining and more supply. With all current coin designs (save possible emunie), rising price does invite more mining, but the emission is not affected. With Bitcoin, this may have contributed to the self-fulfilling belief that the fixed supply is a resource to be hoarded, and sold to the later comers at a higher price. With altcoins, which do not have the luxury to call themselves "the one and only true coin", this thinking is likely a false premise. Just because a coin has a limited number of units, does not mean it is valuable based on that alone. It is always possible to make a new coin and once key people migrate to that, the previous alt is bound to die a slow death.

Coins with a very fast and fixed distribution (POS) just aggravate these problems, so I am not going into them.

Monero serves as an example of a coin that holds great promise, is 100% POW, no premine/instamine or that, and currently its price is below the average of its emission-weighted history (and also volume-weighted history, which is an easier qualification). It has of course the same challenges that every coin has, in building a community. But a special challenge comes from the ultimate "fairness" that Monero, partly because of the idealism of the current core team, partly because of its history, has: there is not enough funds to develop the coin at a speed that is required to keep up. The debt currency developers (bankers) have all the money in the world, same to a smaller degree applies to POS and premine coin devs, but Monero devs do not have it.

The economic history of Monero is that a great resource has been expended to mining it. Some of it has been miner profits, but most has been consumed as mining costs. The current price is below that of purchasing the coins for the aggregate of investors, so the investors have been not only paying for the mining costs but also subsidized the mining profits from their own pocket. On top of that, the developers, who also own stakes, have subsidized the coin creation + subsidized the development. It has been a wonderful experiment, but we have to face the facts that at present we are deeply on the red.

I am not proposing anything to Monero (this is important to say since I serve as Operational Executive in the MEW, so my words might be interpreted to apply to that), just thinking how the initial distribution system could be make better so that it retains all the fairness, but the added value from the emission, or a part of it, could be captured to serve the adoption of the coin so that in the end the network effect would make everyone better off, not only the first, middle and latter adopters, but the society at large. Optimally, the universal adoption of the currency would be such a great boon to the liberty and well-being of everyone that even the ones who "lose" as a result of their previous wealth's purchasing power reduction, are mostly happy with the result.

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

Ideally best distribution of cryptocurrency would be even spread among all human beings, with automated sensible flattening procedures over time. Note that such automatically flattening crypto would be just measure of value, platform and exchange medium for "producer credits", or "assets", as we call them, and the latter forms of cryptocurrencies would represent most of the genuine purchasing power. Individuals and communities could and would create assets according to what they produce (no production, no purchasing power) and exchange those assets to other assenge on the global exchange platform. Best distribution: de jure AND de facto equal possibility to freely create and exchange cryptocurrency assets. Market anarchy, money creation anarchy, anarchy with strong social consciousness and global empathy.

- de-anonymize coin production on a global scale and give every human being the possibility to produce his own money under one currency (produce coins with your birth-certificate or your finger print)
- give every person the same rate of emission
- the market will allocate the coins/value efficiently
- if I understood the practical solution of the byzantine generals problem in bitcoin properly, this mechanism will lead to the same result

We work to reverse this.
Hence the contrapositive:

"So that we may be careful in making laws, decentralize control of the world's money, to all its people."

Small but important reformulation:

"So that we may be careful in making and using smart contracts, decentralize control of the world's purchasing power, to all its people."

Reliable PoI is for sure the desperately and still missing killer app, but the real deal is to give every producer - individual or collective - the possiblity to create money/assets/token/credit (the word does not matter, what matters is purchasing power) representing their production. No products, no purchasing power, and to be free people need to be free to exchange their products freely. Individual producer credits can be as simple as promises of working hours that they exchange into food etc.

Following

The best distribution is for BTC
For other crypto currencies - they are so many - I think many are "home made" in fact.

Not surprising it comes from a NXT backer. They are a touchy lot and first to arrive whenever someone mentions 'distribution'.

Those coins can never gain value. (I already said this, just to hear arguments against it, which of course were not received as there are none.)

We already know from my previous posts, the 4 classes:
- First class (developers, earliest adopters, big investors)
- Business class (largish investors, businessmen, service providers)
- Middle class (smaller investors, ordinary users)
- Low class (owners of only a small number of coins).

If coins are forcibly distributed to everybody, they come to low class in such an abundance (low class consists of 80% of people) that they have no use for them and either:
- sell them as soon as there is a meaningful value to be extracted (cf. Auroracoin), or
- keep them, making a huge overhang of value belonging to people who do not contribute to the economy.

In these conditions, the Business class (of 3% of the people) does not have the means nor feels the need to develop services for these people, just to get the worthless tokens in exchange. There are so much better coin economies available that every productive person chooses them instead.

Monero economy is valued at $5 million now. By distributing coins to everyone equally, it would be $0.001, needless to say such an effort is futile.

I exhort everybody to read the question again and let the proposals flow.  :)

very antiquated thinking - , trust me i'm about as far from "socialist" as you can get in some aspects, its just faulty thinking, here is why:

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

your "business class" system is completely flawed, micro businesses are a business never the less, and they don't (or won't) constitute 8% but more like 80%.

you have quasi admitted that at best Monero will be a "payment container" by admitting no one will buy it off you at your "fake" "business class" price.

and why would they ?  there is no chivalry in "Business class" that says you can have a better deal than me, that is ultimate faulty thinking.

The point to remember :

the Fiat debt money system worked (past tense) the best out of all the other systems (communism, "socialism" etc) because it leveraged the free market from a centralized point -, if people want to learn that means that; the Federal reserve was the ultimate "lender" but then let any commercial FI engage in Credit Creation and compete.

this can not be done with Crypto becasue the Central authority self destructs, also i can't get into the other complexities here - the point is , you can apply old faulty thinking to a new system.

When Quark surpasses Monero on Cap with broader distribution will you claim that there are just more "business class" in Quark? 

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

Yup.
Monero community consists currently closer to 10 000 members rather than a few dozens.
There are tons of members who are outside bitcointalk.  ;D

Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.

Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.

By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.

I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.

if I understood ristos post properly he says:

fiat creation is unfair because most people are excluded of money creation
central institutions for value production were historically neccessary, nowadays due to our beloved bitcoin protocol this is no longer the case
PoS as well as PoW still exclude most people in money production.

I am pretty sure that a decentralized proof of identy for money production on global scale is closest to perfect money creation.

Just imagine you give every human being the possibility to create a predefined amount of money a day, noone is excluded, noone earns money by producing money, market allocation is still in play for value distribution. I would bet that this baby would network - maybe something like that will make in the future miners for bitcoin security obsolete.

You are all children, or at least not monetary economists  :P

The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).

it does not create value because it excludes people in the creation of money. people need to buy bitcoin with fiat - that is the reason why it is lacking adoption. because for most western people fiat works. bitcoin offers some things which can be seen as superior but it is missing a way to integrate more people

demand for state currencies is driven by governments authority to raise taxes in that specific currency - - until now the integration despites early adopters was mostly driven by the expectation of appreciation of bitcoins value. - I think that I do not neccessarily need to tell you as a monetary economist what that normally means - I personally think that it is little different in bitcoin, but normally this is the definition of a bubble

with the part quoted you show that you do not want to create a currency, but a decentralized network with tokens, which creates value - but this is not a currency as well as bitcoin is not a currency by definition. I am pretty sure you as well as me have already found the second network which creates value ;).

your arrogance is remarkable - I assume that I am at least given academic history more of a monetary economist than you are

Another statistic, and a little analysis:

From a spot check of the moment there are 109 folks currently connected in the monero-dev irc on freenode, there are 500 in the Bitcoin developer IRC. 

So comparing the other statistics you've already gathered, it would seem the Monero community has a higher developer type / user type than Bitcoin.  This bodes well for its future, but may also indicate the need for user tools.  With those tools, Monero may more swiftly reach the userbase proportionate, which if Bitcoin is 1,000,000 people today, this would put the Monero userbase at 200,000.  Its not anywhere near that today, but it speaks to the potential to be unlocked when those tools are developed.

[ask]Read comments here,so according to that, can we make a list, some coin that have a big potential to grow up and survive in crypto market? 

Let me guess, your ideal coin is...
ForgivenessCoin?
Ask and ye shall receive...
Seek and ye shall find...
Knock and the paper wallet is opened unto thee?

All debts forgiven upon request for this coin.

Why not do a crowd funding program on Kickstarter or some such thing? Voluntary contributions in exchange for trinkets or memorabilia. All proceeds go to the Devs.

Adoption benefits may be best gained from saving as much cost as possible for newcoin.
Saving mining costs can give newcoin more room to grow, as maximal value is available from investment to stimulate adoption.
 
One method to do this would be to employ merge-mining from the outset with another existing coin.
Additionally development cost can be saved with this merge mined coin if the existing coin is friendly to the idea.  Developers of the existing coin will keep the coin compatible with everything except for only necessary changes at initial release, so minimal or no additional work for most commits if there is some process automation for commits.

This has potential downstream benefits by enhancing developer support for the initial coin, as well as increase the value of the initial coin by stimulating more profitable mining, thus more mining for initial coin as well, and thus more security for the initial coin.

Thus adoption efforts receive maximal support from the value accretion.  Highest utility at lowest cost.

Consider that when something is less expensive it is more used.  If adoption is the goal, economy of scale from the outset must be assumed as necessary.

By example, electricity was expensive compared to total cost of living there was maximal conservation.  When processors and memory were scarce, every bit counted.  When these costs diminished usage became ubiquitous.
USA lost $55 Million dollars last year in their penny manufacture (above the value of the pennies made), lets not follow their fail.

I defy anyone to find a better more accessible to the masses fun and fair distribution ever!

I feel like once people hear about this it's gonna be big.


Apparently exchanges are coming, it's very under the radar at the moment. Simply download app and you can run in background, awesome!

http://www.mangocoinz.com

I think MangoCoinz has a chance of being distributed amongst a wider audience than others.

NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.

Both numbers are dubious. Its much less than 3000, less than 2000 probably as there were lots of multiple accounts. Similarly with NXT, there were multiple donations by the same individual.

Please if you state that something is "better", tie it to the body-of-knowledge of "what is better" provided by me.

If you don't want to use my framework, argue that betterness has another criteria, state them, and be ready to discuss.

This way the conversation improves and leads to interesting conclusions.

/OP: sorry for hijack  ;D

Doge ; )

yeah no problem that's got to be all above board, the fact of the matter is it will all come out in the wash,(everyone here knows that) and I was talking about in % terms.

Equally as dead as Monero? you are too hard on yourself, I never said it was "dead" I'm just saying its a long way behind because of the "tech insider" pump that i easily could have been involve in, as you know i went on to your topic an called it as it was happening, but when I make % gains its not on these little pump dump actions, I just don't see the point?

Monero is just another crypto that "can't stand the heat" so to say, the heat being the ability to be distributed.

its basically too weak to be able to be properly distributed.

so you have moved back to some faulty logic that only the "business class" should control it (similar to the way Bitcoin furiously tries to ignore the elephant in the room right now ha ha)

i can't even conceive of how that works?

I'll make a bet - Myriad is a Crypto that "is standing the heat" it had the strength to put its units out into the system just like Quark did.

I bet both Myriad and Quark over the medium to long term outperform Monero .

if i'm wrong I'll concede your "business class theory" is correct.

 

I am sorry but nothing you say makes any sense, including your interpretations of what I might have said.

Are you sure you are ok?  ???

This ties into why World Dollar (http://www.world-dollar.com) is so brilliant, no-one has to "buy" into it, and everyone is integrated into it as it is distributed to everyone, equally. Expect big things from WLD.

What makes it valuable? Why would somebody try to amass them? How long does it take to arrive at the functional "optimal" distribution with the 4 classes? Is it even possible?

Sorry i'll say it without the rant.

Monero is weak and can't handle to be PoW distributed by a common known algo  ( like Quark )

Myriad also used multiple common algos, ( with separate difficulty) it has been mined in a similar fashion.

so summary:

- Monero weak.

- Myriad, Quark are robust.

The weak will under-perform against the robust in the medium to long term.

so you are actually just making bad investment decisions.

i.e those that invest in robust systems will make more % gains in the long term than little pump and dumps.

OK. So now please try to add some reasoning to your opinion. What makes them weak or robust?

(Actually everyone has just told me to ignore you :( )

Any PoW crypto is weak due to fiat leak. There you go, almost makes a rhyme. Electricity/datacenter renting fees are the sword of Damocles overhanging PoW economy. With the looming exception (still to be confirmed) of those PoW cryptos that mine most of their supply quickly enough and then go PoW/PoS, PoS, or use a different mechanism to protect their network but at the same type do not stay very inflationary (auXPoW in Doge, 5-algo in Myriad although the prospects of Myriadcoin are bleak due to no meaningful community). But you probably will refute this argument for some reason, and it's ok :)

"everybody" said Bitcoin was going higher from $600~ ; D

"everybody" is a little hurt right now an needs a hug?


I explained it quite clearly I expect "everybody" doesn't want to listen, again {yawn}

the algorithm matters the "tech insider" gimmick is old now< lets explain that to be very crystal clear:

any "new" algo has this effect basically, I explained this, and the effect (which is temporary) of course means the "tech insiders" get the "privilege" on distribution -

this is really no different to Bitcoins many "controversies" but as you can see its a temporary effect.

so it's weak, your price is not a real price becasue the market has not had sufficient access to the entity to price it, its quite simple and i expect "everybody" would like to ignore it of course.

but "everybody" needs to understand who wins in the long term, because "everybody" knows how much of your market is fake.

yes you are correct well done, I will refute that.

now explain to me how i say :

"you are stupid"

without offending you?

how about like this:

"yes very good, you have realized that Myriad and others are down in price right now, so this tells me you have eyes and can count to 10, this however doesn't make a good basis for an argument to invest, because you see {I've now slowed down my talking} generally when you are an "investor", you like to buy things when they are cheap and sell them higher."

the opposite of that is called "losing wealth"

so yes very good you have noted that crypto that are distributed both fairly quickly and or with common algos drop to the market price, this is an amazing observation i think for yourself.

now you just have to figure out the rest, which is that scamming a price high doesn't mean you sucker new people.

wow

Best distribution has BitSharesX 50% AGS/50% PTS owners, more details here: http://wiki.bitshares.org
Genesis block: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dacsunlimited/bitsharesx/master/libraries/blockchain/genesis.json

PS: All comming BitShares family (BitShares DNS/Vote/Music/Me/Play, etc) has same distribution model.
PS2: 10 of October snapshot for BitShares Music, more details here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9387.0
PS3: Ethereum probably also has good distribution, but not released yet.

one of the best distributions has Unobtanium since it is with many different miners and investors. Many miners were holding the coins. 1 year distribution to 11000 wallets.
Top 10 wallets only hold 15% of supply. Pretty much everyone bought their coins at the market or was mining hard for them. It is in fact one of the better distributed coins.

Since it wasn't hyped up a lot and is longterm play it slipped under the radar of many. Worth a look. Good future outlooks.

I agree with what most people in here said, that distribution is hard to pin down because wealth naturally accumulates to a small amount of people (80/20 rule), imo the closest fact you can get here are the total number of addresses created and the distribution of coins in those addresses.

I wrote about it in depth in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=800481.0
it's on Digitalcoin (a coin i'm bagholding) but you can ignore that.

I really like this block explorer, to make this simple just check out this pie chart
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dgc/#!rich
The larger the green portion, the healthier the coin, in a nutshell. Just take into account how many addresses are in existence and you've got a pretty good picture of distribution.

UNO is great for the future outlook. A lot of miners have shifted their hashing to UNO now that BTC has tanked.  Much more profitable...

Also, it has a great and active community that is in it for the long haul. There's no pump and dumpers.  The world is beginning to catch on to the fact that it's a no inflation coin. Plus the fact that there's the ability to convert back and forth for precious metals is an attractive piece as well.

captcoin has very good distribution.
The dev needs to release merchants which can use the coin to attract interest.

i mean if genocide is your thing.. that's why i'm so into bitcoin, it levels the financial playing fields like a nuclear bomb ;D

Slightly more accurately, one "buys in" to world dollars by creating a video of oneself advocating world dollars.
Essentially, it outsources the advertising content creation in exchange for the world currency.  This is a form of legitimate trade, more than a gift.
The first big thing I would expect is a compilation video, of anyone world dollar thinks is interesting to have in its video.
I see nothing much wrong with this, though you may want to get releases from the video submitter permitting your reuse.
I wish you good fortune with this enterprise.

Following.

This is actually an interesting experiment.

- What's currently the value of "1 share"?
- How does the developer recoup the costs?
- How are the middle, business and 1st class formed?
- How many people currently in?

- "1 share" is 10,000 WLD, which has been mainly trading for .01 BTC so far
- There's no 1 developer in the sense that there is a network of issuers and a network of platforms where World dollars can be used for payments & trading. Issuers could charge small fees for the services provided (although, the first issuer, http://www.coinautonomy.com is issuing free of charge atm), and trading/ payments platforms can take commissions. Plus, there could be big money to be made, albeit at high risk. for buying up large volumes of WLD at the current prices its trading at.
- There is no middle, business, 1st class, everyone gets same amount, 10,000 WLD
- Approx. 100 atm. Would expect the number to spike significantly with big news coverage. But many thousands of subscribers, it's definitely a concept that's got people interested & talking about it.

The topic is as interesting as ever. I am bookmarking this for possibly renewed research/debate.

The most fair distribution i can think of is where everyone has the same chance of accumulating roughly the same amount of currency for roughly the same amount of work to get said currency, i think magi coin and burst have fair distribution using computer to mine coins but obviously if they need money they sell for less than market rate and someone with money gains them cheaper. All the game is rigged so if it starts fair does not mean it will end fair :(

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

That's a good one.

For the future, the issue remains that if you start something new, the first people that are likely to hear about it, are already in a good position in life. If they are rewarded for their early adoptership with a price rise, the resulting distribution of money will be quite unequal. Is it possible to leverage this situation somehow that the world becomes a better place through wealth inequality (as it has been reached in a voluntary way)?

Every attempt so far to make world a better place through forced equality has been anything between sad and a disaster.

I don't know if it is possible to do something helpful. But it is possible to at least "do no harm" by not distributing an absurd fraction of the coins on the first days, weeks, etc.

source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121089/how-small-bitcoin-miners-lose-crypto-currency-boom-bust-cycle

Bitcoin is the most accepted and well known cryptocurrency, yet we see this problem affecting it as well.

The problem with cryptocurrency economies is that they're small. Small to a point that comparing them to the dollar or any other major fiat currency is an unfair comprasion.

We see some of the world's richest men and we admire them and their families because they earned their wealth by running successful businesses well. It's different with cryptocurrencies however. Let's say that someone wanted to hold 0.1% of dogecoin for example. All he'd have to do is buy it directly or invest in a mining operation. Earning it would work as well but surely needs more effort. That means that anyone with pre-existing wealth can hold a big chunk of each cryptocurrency's total coin cap effortlessly.

I don't think that there's any way or reason to prevent this though.

A good idea for a new coin (if your a communist) is automatic wealth distributions every day. Slowly the richer lose while the poor get more  ;D

Sad but true, one more article is equating blockchain addresses with individual wealth. They have 0% nothing to do with each other.

The argument is true, but the proof is totally false.

A good idea is an idea that works  ::)

Haha this was a joke but if someone made this I would try it out with some pennies. Is this kind of thing possible? Automatically removing balance and sending it somewhere else?

I think I already made mention to the Muslim law that says you should yearly give 2.5% of your wealth away. It can be enforced easiest by inflation. Another thing is whom to send this extra money? To ensure the "poor" receive it, there would need to be some ID authentication, which goes quite against the principles of these systems.

Does it even matter where you send it (putting aside obvious abuse like the richest people trading it between each other)? As long as everyone gives away 2.5% the richest will be giving away more and concentration is reduced.

Finally read the whole thread ... I joined late :)

If I could learn anything from this it is that it looks like there is no equitable distribution.
I think the hardest part is to establish equal value.
Certain things have different values for different people, countries, nations ...
Some appreciate the value of time, because they do not have enough. While others have time to spare. Some people value gold and to other it doesn't mean anything. Some need water, some are starving ...
For a fair distribution the first thing would be to define something that is of equal value to everyone and it is also equally available at the same time.

Just my two (philosophical) cents ;)

Too bad NEM doesn't actually exist.

Rich people never got rich by giving their money away. That's why they are rich -- because they are stingy and thrifty and not donators. Its the genetic instinct of hoarding that has consumed their entire lives that allowed them to acquire vast fortunes that they won't be able to spend before they die. Then it gets passed on to their shitty kids.

How else do you think His Majesty got started?

Of course it does. If it is sent to a random address, not the poor but the ones with most addresses will win. If more is taken from the "rich", the largest addresses, not the actual rich, lose more. If it is only taken but not distributed, nothing changes. Etc.

I believe everyone should be able to earn as much as he can, through voluntary agreements. But also if it could be possible to have a fixed-percentage wealth tax (and not any other tax), it would help the poor yet keep the economic incentives.

The western world is trying to achieve the same with the 2.5% inflation target, but that is a farce, which only bites the middle class and gives to the rich, whereas the proper system would take from the rich, give to the poor and leave the middle class to mind their own business.

Hey hey, I have given away more than a million dollars, and I have to say that it is significantly more than I have received from my loving parents!

Also it says "donator" next to my name.

And my kids are not shitty.

--------------------------------------------------

According to the definition, it must be that I am not rich. Thanks for this clarification  :D

Sure I agree about addresses being pointless. That's that's why I have always explained that the "rich lists" shown around by various scam alts are themselves scams.

But I don't really agree about the rest. Most of the world has virtually no wealth aside from human capital. If we assume that is not included then even 2.5% of other wealth given equally by everyone (to anyone or everyone without specifically targeting the richest) does increase equality.

Seems we exactly agree. The only practical difficulty is how to enforce the collection of this tax (easy with blockchain, difficult IRL) and how to distribute it equally (difficult with blockchain, easy IRL).

Distributing anything IRL is often not easy. In theory sure, but in practice there is always fraud and abuse, sometime on a national or larger scale.

Controlled inflation works reasonably well for the blockchain case. I happen not to believe you should be able to sit on an asset and be guaranteed X% of the monetary base in perpetuity. (In fact I would say this guarantees that the relevant monetary base will shrink) Others disagree on that clearly though.

I got the impression back in the days of XMR emission debate that our thinking is the same in this matter.

In the current economic conditions, I would think that a 2.5%...5% annual growth of the monetary base could be justifiable. It is just that it should depend on the activity in the economy and not be fixed. In periods of low innovation and low growth, people would abandon the inflationary coins, wrecking their value, so the emission should be close to 0% in those years. The problem becomes the same that the central bankers currently have, and it is not easy to solve. So this approach has high hopes but not many proven solutions.

I have tried to mimic these thoughts in the emission model of CKG. It actually has a superficial similarity to Quark (which I have criticized heavily, ooops  :P ) The main and important difference, not found in almost any coin, is that CKG emission is dependent on the absolute amount of activity in its economy (proxied by total hours of play by day as Proof-of-Play) when most coins rely on a fixed emission schedule and rewards given as relative shares of the hashrate/staking.

What is ultimately needed is an established way for the economy majority to choose a fork. That would solve both the hard forking problem and the miner incentivization problem in one fell swoop.

My guess is that when push comes to shove the method is already in place: people sell coins in the inferior fork for coins in the superior fork. In other words the market decides. Anyone who sits out the decision process is left with their wealth unchanged. Anyone who actively tries to choose which fork is better will be rewarded or debited according to the accuracy of their judgment.

Haven't come across one perfect example. Quark initially had tried to achieve that by adopting the cpu mine concept but unfortunately the short mining period that ends too early means the coin ended up only among handful of people. I think a coin which achieve a fair distribution will be much better off than one which does not.

I have yet to see a coin that has tried to fit the emission to the actual increase in adoption, by granting the early adopters a reduced 10-100x increase assuming maximum adoption (this would happen with exponential inflation that is tied to exponential growth.)

I have seen many coins that would give 1,000,000x or more to the early adopters if they ever became widely adopted, but have 0.000000% chance of that happening.

Have a look at CKG. It is not a coin, it is a dividend-paying resource token (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966001.msg10560783#msg10560783), but the inflation formula has been tried to make such that if adoption happens, the early adopters' gains are correlated to the SQRT(increase) and the rest of the increase in value added goes to all the players as new CKG, boosting their commitment and making wealth more evenly distributed.

(Red colorization added.)

In Writcoin™ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776426.0), new G.E. (https://rgeo5wj7gneidzh3.onion.lt) coins enter circulation through coinbase transactions (and formally exit via “null data” transactions) like in Bitcoin. However, these coinbase transactions are permitted to originate from without a block.

Bitshares is probably the best example of the "best distribution", two guys (until proven otherwise) have this very successful masquerade of 101 delegates which nobody has ever seen or talked with in person and these delegates were acquired through websites they control.
 
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.tinypic.com%2F2rnajc1.png&t=549&c=uoA3Chz3GoPrLw

Something like PayCoin SCAM. There was that delicious pre-ICO distribution to their "private investors" of unknown quantities to unknown parties...

Did you all ever hear something about Silvio Gesell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell)  ;D :o