Jason Alexander (advocate of "gun control" aka disarming only innocents for criminals' safety) is listed as a supporter, so it's going to need a Ron Paul injection to make any self-respecting libertarian give a shit...

I can see how something like the brick standard would work, since bricks are widely used and the central bank can convert money back to bricks. If money loses it's value you go to the Fed, take your bricks and build a home. So it's a good inflation hedge and technical advances to brick making won't be very dramatic. Approached from a public choice point of view it could be worthwhile because it massively cuts the rulers' freedom to fuck with the ruled; unlike other monetary policies which are optimal if only Jesus was head of the central bank.

But tie monetary policy to something like "Kommey normalized million SHA256 hashes" ? Which can jump a whole order of magnitude in price during a year or two ? And which are useless in themselves ? (and either way we won't have a way to transform a coin back to it's component hashes). That doesn't bode well on the stability front. It's rather sad if it's all we can do because it makes stability impractical, not a mere tradeoff.

This thread is NOT the place to bash the StableCoin concept or criticize its supporters.

Energy shocks and rapid technical changes would influence the value of money. 3D chips, war with Iran, nuclear fusion, and many other similar things would open the door wide to speculators looking to extract value from the users of the currency.

I would suggest checking out Decrits before potentially reinventing the wheel. Although I mention several times in that thread that many ideas are tentative, they are not so tentative in the 6+ months of delving down and refining since.

Step 1: separate currency creation from securing the network. This is a huge task and one that has been solved in the Decrits proposal.
Step 2: find a way to force miners to compete against each other in who can create coins faster by offering incentives. In addition to this, difficulty must only increase, not decrease (this can only happen if step 1 is in place). See the Decrits proposal.
Step 3: while the technical supply of coins must be unlimited, the realistic amount of coins that can be created in a certain time frame needs to be tied to network activity. To make network activity "honest", a percentage of each transaction must be taken as a fee (Decrits proposes 0.01%).
Step 4: defensive measures must be in place to protect against attacks on the difficulty via ASICs or pooled power. See deeper in the Decrits thread.
Step 4a: make mining create only a portion of new coins with the rest being given away in a lottery to reduce the "hardware tax" as I call it, so that you don't need to be a miner to make a profit using the network. This reduces the power that, for example, a region with cheap electricity would have over one with expensive electricity. It also means that few coins actually need to be paid for in hardware/electricity/time, which as we all know is a complete waste.

And billion other things that would make the network better and more efficient for fun.


I would suggest checking out Decrits before potentially reinventing the wheel. Although I mention several times in that thread that many ideas are tentative, they are not so tentative in the 6+ months of delving down and refining since.

In essence, you are proposing to replace (to some extent) volatility in price with volatility in money supply. Both are prone to speculative games and manipulation.

Still, I like this thread, except that it lacks specific, detailed proposals about the idea you presented in broad strokes above.

Price volatility does not come from fixed supply. It comes from speculations on exchanges. Fixed supply  alone would cause a steady deflation.
 

ITT proposing price stability in a forum full of speculators

To stabilize the price against what?

I don't see how it could be done with a minor change specifically on the technical side??
Elaborate.

For that matter, you are assuming that supply is what is causing the variance, which is, imho, quite erroneous.
The main reason I have seen from watching it, is its current status as a commodity rather than a currency.
By virtue of it merely slowly spreading in usage, it will gradually become a currency.

It is important to note that SC is a "was" and not something that ended up functioning at all.

this is not a minor change.

the SolidCoin forums.

The less efficient miners are the smallest portion, even without asics, the money in the larger mining operations makes them more efficient.
The smaller, less efficient miners being forced out would be a bad thing, as this would leave only larger industry in control of the coin, thus lowering its security in numbers.

Current lower limit has been calculated at 40 bucks something /btc now due to the rising investment cost.