Which ones? It doesn't make a good example, unless you give an actual example.

But as long as you are saying, it's not my fault, nor is it my responsibility, then we're good.

So let's say the default and don't pay a penny back to those greedy bankers. Let's also say the kill or deport all those corrupt government officials. Let's also say they drop out of the Euro currency so they can do what they want with their Drachmas.

A 50% reduction in debt plus austerity measures took them from spending 150% of GDP down to 120% of GDP. Let's say they give up the austerity measures you don't like, but dump the other 50% of debt too. Are you claiming they have a hope in hell of getting by without German/European charity?

Should "the Greek people" choose to go it alone, against the advice of every European neighbor, at what point do you think they become *my* problem? I say never. I'm sure you will differ.

Just some friendly advice. Don't go to Vegas!

Somebody explain to me exactly which "ism" that Greece is.

Beyond balking about *not* paying back 50% of their loans. They are balking about austerity measures whereby the government can only spend 120% of GDP each year. I mean WTF!

Socialism wants safety nets to protect some from others.
Communism wants to redistribute only the actual GDP among the workers.
What crazy ass "ism" demands to redistribute wealth that absolutely nobody has created?

Isn't this like saying Andrea Rossi might turn out to be right. So we should all get free electricity now to make up for the obvious unfairness of riches given to future generations?

The site says most were military as would be expected. Some *could be* solar cell efficiency related which is related to military satellites not ground based power.

But your own source list only 11 "John Doe" Secrecy Orders (imposed on private inventors)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html

What is the chance that one of these is mystical free energy? Vs say the chance that they are rednecks making things that go boom?

You never do. You simply take all the available information and make a wild-ass-starting guess. By for example saying the most efficient advertised GPU (etc) miner is X hash/joule. The most lowest known electrical cost where miners tend to be is Y. We want 1 ENC to be in the $Z range so (do a little math) the starting difficulty is (WAG).

At that point minters will mint what they want and stop when they want. If they want to mint ENC for $2 and trade them for $1 we don't try to stop them. However, the electric company eventually will.



There really is no "massive risk". The idea is that merchants want to trade in digital money. People want to trade in digital money. How many digital coins do we need? It's a matter of external value and coin velocity. The faster the coins circulate the fewer total coins are needed. If the external value to be traded exceeds the plausible velocity of the existing coins, the coin value rises. This stimulates the creation of new coins.



No one has to take the massive risk of generating 100,000 ENC worth of coins up front. Minters can start by generating 100 ENC. If there is a growing demand, they generate more.

I have some difference from Etlase2 on how cutthroat the competition should be. I think the most efficient should win. He likes to spread the wealth around a little more. He can explain why.

Yeah, Encoin is different like that. People are rewarded for producing/trading goods and services. The coins are designed just to facilitate this exchange. They are not designed to be goods themselves.



Encoin doesn't need to collect or even try to deduce this information. The system starts from a wild-ass-guess (WAG) as to what the difficulty should be. Then it stabilizes on an ENC = X kwh relationship based upon the most efficient of competing minters. After that point it should trade in a narrow range.

I said a few things to help people understand basic concepts. They might not exactly agree with your latest proposal. I suggest you discuss the two concept below based on how Encoin aspires to be different from my rudimentary GEM principles.


This was difficult for me to understand because you mixed intrinsic inflation (variances from Koomey's law) from extrinsic inflation (variances in demand).

Can you explain the basics?


You care more about leveling the playing field than I do. Perhaps you should explain why you do. And how you compensate against efficiency.

The system is bounded by the most efficient producer in terms of electrical efficiency (times) electric costs. So those using efficient hardware in low energy cost areas will run other "minters" out of minting.

I can't answer the "what if electricity prices tend toward zero question." In the GEM system I laid out that contingency requires manual intervention. EnCoin handles it differently. Etlase2 will have to explain his concepts there.



All alternatives compete, but they have the same bound, electrical efficiency (times) electric costs. Personally, I don't care who creates the new coins. I only care that they get created in a timely manner.

However, unlike Bitcoin, minting isn't a continuously running process. Minters will mint until the trade value of the coins is below their electrical cost to create them. Then they stop. When the trade value of the coins increases again, all minters race to create new coins until falling values force them to stop again.

Encoin is the opposite of Bitcoin. If you like the idea of a fixed number of coins that grow in value based on population growth, you will hate Encoin. There is no early adopter premium in Encoin. Nor does ENC grow in value based upon increases in the trading economy nor number of users.



Supply is constrained by generation cost bounded by trading value. It doesn't make sense to spend $X in electricity to generate an ENC when it is worth $<X in trade. If the demand for ENC increases then 1 ENC will be worth $>X in trade. This will stimulate new minting which brings the value back down to $X.



The transaction record is not secured by hashing power. There is no concept of a hidden 51% attack that can change history.

Sounds like a Halloween story... He was my neighbor and seemed like a nice guy, then I found out it was all a cover story. He was secretly a Federal Reserve chairman! When little kids came to his house for halloween, he didn't give out any commodity candy! Instead he handed out worthless Federal Reserve Notes!!!! Aaaahhhhhh!



I live in a society for which there is no hope. Re-read the bit above about annotated sarcasm.

The basic TL;DR description is that EnCoin is designed as a pure digital currency with coins (ENC) that cost a fixed amount of electricity to create. The system-wide goal is to hold this amount of electricity fixed over time. Even though, electrical costs will change and technologies will change. Hence, the slightly inside joke "1 ENC costs about 1 ENC to produce". This means if it cost your grandfather 10 kwh to create 1 ENC, it will cost you 10 kwh to create 1 ENC. This ratio remains constant regardless of adoption rate or demand for ENC.

The better way to visualize the goal, is that if 1 ENC bought 1 loaf of bread for your grandfather, it will likely 1 loaf of bread for you even in the face of fiat currency inflation.
(pre-inflation) 1 ENC generated at $0.10 kwh = $1 loaf of bread
(post-inflation)1 ENC generated at $1.00 kwh = $10 loaf of bread

The simplest way to understand the implementation concept is to think of bitcoin but with a monotonically increasing difficulty level. Each day the hash difficulty is raised a little to compensate for Koomey's law. Over time that difficulty will double about every 18 months. That way future increases in processor efficiency are offset by increased computational difficulty.

The most important difference from bitcoin is that this creates a stable valued coin that is created in differing quantities base upon demand. So if a million new folks want to trade $20 each worth of eggs, butter and cheese each month, they can buy or generate as many coins as they need to make it happen. There is never a hoarding issue because ENC values spikes are designed to be momentary.

It's all bullshit except the one I believe is real!

So you are saying this is so effective that nobody has ever risked the $10,000 fine and 2 years in jail to go for the billions of dollars that magic energy would bring? I mean, even the book rights on the government conspiracy story would be worth millions. But it would only be worth that if magic energy actually worked. The "government is squashing my technology against my will" story only holds if your billion dollar technology doesn't really work.

It is like claiming you have a technique for creating undetectable forgeries of US currency. But you can't explain the technology because the government might fine you $10,000. That is circularly silly. If you have the technology, how could the government tell if you paid the fine in forged money.

Even this Italian guy is claiming he wants to patent and publish his technology. He claims he is only keeping it secret because he is being declined a patent. In the US you can get a patent even if your idea doesn't work. I say give him a patent and let's see what all the fuss is about.

I read those sections. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/usc_sec_35_00000181----000-.html

The head of a major government agency has to re-classify a patent every year. The government still has to pay compensation. And the penalty is up to $10,000 and two years in prison. That hardly appears to be a sufficient technique for squashing billion dollar energy technologies.

With Meyer's you don't have to believe anything. There is a perfectly good wiki page. He also filed a patent so you can just build what he made and see if it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell
http://www.google.com/patents/about/4389981_Hydrogen_gas_injector_system_for.html?id=ihY9AAAAEBAJ

That is the best think about patents. Nobody can buy them up and hide them. If it is patented, it is public.

Oh, I went back and reviewed some of your other posts. You are that crazy guy who wants the government to monitor every bitcoin account! I had you confused with someone coherent. My mistake. I never should have awarded any of my time to you.

You are a Scientologist that believes in centralized control of resources for the supposed good of everyone. Of course you do. You would have to now wouldn't you. Nothing more really needs to be said.

This is awesome in its silliness! The site even has its own disclaimer!
http://www.rense.com/disclaimer.htm

Cool! Fictional Sagacious Ironic Assisted Death of Misadventure... 

Thanks!


I know! It would be pretty game changing. I really want someone to talk me out of getting my hopes up. I'm usually pretty pessimistic about such things.

The odd (talking out my ass) pattern I keep reading is physicists speculating about nano-scale atomic geometries having something to do with these reactions. (Lattices and so forth.) I can't say I really understand any of it at a deep level. But there has already been lots of nano-engineering research lately. (Graphene, nano-tubules, atomic-scale motors) Geometrically, it all seems pretty basic so far. But if someone can come up with a theory of how atomic geometries of nickel facilitate nuclear reactions (or paladium etc.), that ability to push atoms into regular patterns could really start to get useful fast.