there is no need for a change transaction when using a balance sheet. coin "mixing" is also significantly easier, so if for some reason you feel your anonymity has been compromised, you can always do that.

it's the helicopter effect of giving money away in a new system of money. a certain cryptocurrency you may or may not be familiar with is in the process of doing the same thing right now.


I have not delved into it, but it does not appear to be a loan.  "It works as an exchange system. If you have goods or services to offer, you gain credit, with one euro equivalent to one TEM."


Could you explain what you mean by zero sum? And perhaps expand on "inflationary by design"? If they had said, "we will start with 10 quadrillion TEM and give a 300 TEM credit to each person who signs up" is this system more or less inflationary than one that just adds 300 credits to the economy for each person that signs up?


Isn't this the absolute foundation for money?

connect to a social network? for serious? rofl

and affect not effect, shame on you dwolla

To achieve percentile fees, you need to use a balance sheet or account ledger or whatever you want to call it. This can be done in a bitcoin-derived protocol. It will just require a bit more than changing a value here and there.

I described in light detail most of what you are looking to achieve in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64637.0

Instead of requiring txes to be included, block selection is done based on blocks that have the most weight, and weight would come from a mechanic similar to bitcoin days destroyed.

I would suggest, however, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel to start contributing to the Encoin project. This: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76750.0 is the latest thread to help flesh out some details as MoneyIsDebt has agreed to help program this project.

Sure if you want to use a scenario that fits within Newtonian mechanics. But that defeats the purpose of the example, now doesn't it?

I never said that printing money is necessary to make people spend money, so I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

Too many people confuse economic theory with "predicting the future" when it reality all it does, and (honest) economists do not claim otherwise, is fit the facts into an equation.

Saying it isn't scientific or is a social science is really tired. Just as with physics, the models have gotten better and the equations more complicated over time. However, in some senses, predicting what the universe will do is much easier than predicting what people will do. This, again, does not invalidate economic theory. Just like Einstein did not invalidate Newton--he made a better model. It just means that all of the variables are not obvious.

They don't have to be "causative" to have significance. Correlation still matters, and there is several hundred years' worth of history to back up this correlation. Sure the US government could match everyone's salary (pretend no fractional reserve) and everyone could do absolutely nothing with that extra money and prices could remain the same. But that isn't what is going to happen. Yes this involves "printing" more money, but you can come up with more convoluted scenarios where the same dollars are used, just much more frequently.


you would not likely see someone ask this question with "bitcoins" being replaced with "dollars".

If we stopped this atrociously idiotic idea that money has to be backed by debt then this would not ever be a problem. Take away more and more services that the people pay taxes for so that their taxes can go to paying interest to the wealthy elite. Right on!

Shocking how few understand the velocity of money portion of a money's value.

Is this referring to ECDSA signatures that have the public key encoded in them so that the public key is not necessary? Or just some compression scheme for ECDSA? I thought most implementations of ECDSA already employed public key compression.

Latest encoin thread for reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0

Before I start, bear in mind that the wiki is now like 5 months old and I have made many mental and electronic notes that have never gotten to the wiki. The design has evolved frequently and after I wrote the wiki, not enough interest was drummed up at the time for me to really bother updating it.

1) Though it's buried a bit, the transaction page is here. Users have the option of using the system similarly to bitcoin with separate addresses for each transaction. However, this comes with a big caveat that each transaction requires the minimum transaction fee--which is notably higher than bitcoin's currently, however in the future when mining rewards drop out, they would probably be equivalent. So if you believe that pseudonymity is something worthwhile, you will be nickeled a bit more than you would in bitcoin.

With that said, at least under the written wiki implementation, there would be an 8-byte miscellaneous field which could and should be used by everyone to hash a receipt of the transaction (or simply an order number) so that there is both proof of what the transaction is for (but only if you have a copy of the receipt) and transaction identification to the receiver. This means that the receiver does not need a different receiving address to keep track of each incoming transaction.

2) It is likely to be a combination of both.

Cost of production can change significantly in a number of ways:
A) Energy prices drop significantly
B) Computing hardware makes a giant leap
C) SHA256 or whichever algorithm that is used has a weakness that is exploited (and/or QC)

A1) In some form or another, Koomey's Law will be a part of the coin creation system. This will account for decreasing energy prices over time by increasing the length of time required to produce coins.
B1) This is covered mostly by Moore's Law, but also by Koomey's Law in the case of very energy efficient hardware such as FPGAs or ASICs or future drops in energy consumption of computer hardware.
C1) Any far-reaching effects of this will be mitigated by free coins. Although I have significantly revised the free coins idea since that forum post.

All 3 effects are mitigated by free coins. All 3 effects will be mitigated by many additional ideas I have come up with since that limit how easy it is to create coins for one person. These are details I'd rather go into a bit later, but for example: first of all, the whole supplynet group thing is gone; joining the supplynet will require a minimum difficulty solution and as more peers join this difficulty may rise; once joined, each wallet can create up to 2 coins before being forced to join again; a minimum pool of peers must be in the supplynet before mining can begin based on how many are in the tradenet; only a fraction of those in the pool will be able to create coins at any one time (probably 25%), with new peers selected at random as coins are produced; a maximum amount of coins may be produced per coin-creation period (defined in the wiki, but it will be much different) based on a hard-coded minimum or the average amount of transaction fees in prior periods.

YES I just listed a whole bunch of stuff that sounds complex. But the goal is to have the network adapt to a changing world without the need for developer intervention.


Now, "market price" will not be stable long-term as long as regular fiat money continues to inflate the way it does. "Value" may not be stable on a per-coin basis because of changes in cost of production. However, the basic bootstrap design as far as coins go that I have so far is this:

Years 1-3: Coin reward for solving a block is 3-6x the normal value, starting with 6, and gradually dropping to 3 over the 3 years. This is to get relatively cheap coins into the economy without a significant electrical cost.
Years 4-6: Coin reward is 1x. Allows time for demand to build and distribute coins around.
Years 7-9: Coin reward is 1x, but another 1x those coins is added to account balances proportionally, and another 1x of those coins is awarded randomly to those who send/receive transactions.
Years 10+: Coin reward is 1x, but 2x is awarded to existing balances and 2x to trades. This means that some change would have to happen very quickly that made coins more than 5x easier to produce for it to even really affect the economy. Even then, it would have to be widespread (likely only a SHA2 weakness), and if it is widespread, moore's law will account for it after a few coin-creation periods.

SO, the value may not be stable on a per-coin basis, but coins will be added to all accounts. I'm trying to come up with a percentage based system for adding new money to existing accounts in the case of a serious ramp up in coin production. The worst that could happen by over-awarding existing balances is that the value per coin drops and mining stops, but the value in each account remains the same. Although it does make things a little tricky when it comes to contracts, loans, wages, etc. so I would like to keep the per-coin value as stable as possible.

Not only do I hope to keep a relatively stable value, but also require the absolute minimum in electricity waste.

perhaps you'd be able to power them on, but it is a two-way session and you are going to have to get a signal from the 5mm (wild ass guess) antenna inside the card back to you reader. gl w/that

besides, canada uses chips already on their cards (at least for debit) that require you to put the card physically in a machine. not a big stretch to think that they might use the same system here

don't be a twat. I was only pointing out that I didn't bring anything like that up. AKA somebody was putting words in my mouth, like you blatantly did.

PS - there is no spec. if you want to retort with "read the whitepaper lol" I'd like you to point me exactly where the term "static generation curve" is used, or any detail of the economy at all.

Would be nice to know what "inferences" D&T had to make to spread his FUD lol

ps - while your sig quote is nice, it is one of the many fake quotes attributed to prophetic dead people

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

you're really expecting an unbiased viewpoint from a site called creditcardassist?

you need to be about an inch away but otherwise 100% accurate

lol you've got to say "bitcoin-related" because it's not a bitcoin service, it's a usd/gbp/eur service. God forbid a company actually take the risk of transacting in bitcoins. Not that I'm blaming Aurum, it is a big risk.

whatever, it's cool and all, but I don't really see any value-add to the bitcoin community except for black market stuff which doesn't add any value to bitcoin for the common person. certainly not "hugely needed" imo

What, in particular, does this solve? Now the people who mined lots of coins can privately move their wealth back into fiat? It doesn't do anything much for people who bought into bitcoins.

I pay 1.5% to buy coins
I pay 1.5% to sell coins
I pay 3%+$9 to cash out mtgoxUSD

So 6%+ for what, being back where you started? Or making a payment to someone? This'll make waves

Fees, fees, and more fees. Why do you charge significantly more to deposit to the Aurum MC? Do you have to pay a % on amounts for all these fees too? Otherwise capping the fees would certainly be a nice gesture for people that move more than just a few hundred around. Wires can usually be done for $30-$50 on any amount whereas at $1,000 you're already looking at $39.