https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/c0b2e35108bcf5f8f3c1db6d0ba0ea6e7734efdf780f101dfc044533f98d0a3c
first time win ty!

user: Nando1970

I would like to edit pages. Thx

It is not clear to me how URO is effectively pegged to Urea, and I'm not a fertilizer market expert. Anyway I think this point should be clarified, possibly in a proper forum, not here.

Also it is not clear to me the relationship with my paper: I am not personally a supporter of asset backed currencies, as I am more favorable to controlling supply of the quantity of money instead.

About the "scam or not" debate: time will tell, in the meantime everybody deserves credit until proven guilty.

In any case: never buy something you do not understand, hopefully main adopters will be farmers and players in the fertilizer market. Caveat emptor.

Usual disclaimer applies

ottimo. sarebbe interessante avere anche i lucidi, per chi li ha proiettati.
I miei sono qui: http://[Suspicious link removed]/ScAYWH

I'm using oclvanitygen using a seed file, but I often have to stop the process to restart it later on.
Is the seed usage actually making the new process to restart always from the same point, or is it random anyway and the seed is only used for further randomization?

You will. I know it. And in case I'll remind you.

In the meantime here's my revised thoughts about volatility.
Even Hayek Money, the best money ever devised, is powerless at eradicating the volatility of the value of money: volatility is an intrinsic property of demand dynamics. The variation of demand over time cannot be artificially governed: nobody can alter this matter of fact and oppose the resulting change in value. Rebasing the monetary stock supply can absorb the volatility impact of variable demand, steering its instability effect away from prices and toward wallet amounts instead. The relevance of such elastic supply of money should not be underestimated, as it will trigger a virtuous loop for volatility too: as long as the currency keeps constant value, a sudden large variation of its demand will become unlikely. Moreover, the availability of stable prices will surely help the growth of the economy using that given money, providing a further benefit in terms of a reduction of the demand/supply variability. In the case of cryptocurrencies the noise due to the variable adoption rate and the need to resort to fiat currencies will be progressively reduced. The only remaining volatility contribution would then just be the variability of the cryptocurrency adoption rate, and this is exactly what is sterilized by Hayek Money through elastic supply of money.

All of this boils down again to the recognized necessity of stable prices.

I love the genuine character of your question, as I am under the impression most economists are just cheap jazz, or I cannot understand how they could live 40+ years with the government monopoly of money without a squeak.
Unfortunately, me too, I'm not up to Miles Davis, John Coltrane, or Dave Brubeck, and I am under risk of rehashing the usual jazz. While I ruminate about possible more convincing explanations I really challenge you to think harder about how comfortable you would be about entering into a bitcoin mortgage. This is not a rhetorical question, I am really asking. I would love to exploits any discovery you might progressively make along this line of thinking to improve the effectiveness of my own arguments.

No, it is not. Without dismissing your point, which I acknowledge as "new unfamiliar paradigm": the elastic supply of money is no novelty at all, as it is exactly what every central bank has been doing for every fiat currency. The variability of the number of fiat currency units in our wallets is already happening, mutatis mutandis and with the aggravation of severe unfairness, even if the man on the street is not aware. Read on in section 6.2.

The statement of bitcoin problem is: in the successful attempt of getting rid of any monetary authority using the Bitcoin protocol, the bitcoin currency has inadvertently thrown away also the flexibility of an elastic monetary policy. At this point the line of reasoning should hopefully be self-evident: in order to target purchasing power stability, the cryptocurrency outstanding amount must be dynamically rebased in a fully automatic non-discretionary way. If not self-evident, this idea has appeared at least consequential not only to me, but also to Kevin Dowd that has recently and independently written: “The ideal – one is tempted to say, the gold standard in this area – would be one or more cryptocurrencies that were able to achieve stable purchasing power through elastic but fully automatic and hence non-discretionary supply schedules when real demand changes, and which also have the ability to maintain state-of-the-art security”. Dowd ends his Hayek Money prophecy with a wish I wholeheartedly supports: “Going further, the ultimate possibility for those who believe in private money is that cryptocurrencies might eventually become so widely accepted that they drive government currencies out of circulation and expel the government from the monetary system once and for all”. Moving to elastic supply, the goal of getting rid of monetary authorities is never abandoned, only made easier by a better stronger cryptocurrency.

@Catastrough

thank you, I was aware of the article, and I appreciate it a lot. Nonetheless it suffers two major misunderstandings:

1) fully automatic non-discretionary (auto-pilot, as Jeff Fong calls it) monetary policy does not need to be bitcoin's fixed inelastic supply. I am advocating a fully automatic non-discretionary elastic monetary policy for cryptocurrencies, and defining such cryptocurrencies as Hayek Money.

2) the issuer concept was relevant in the Hayek world, and that is why he was naturally thinking about banks. In the cryptocurrency world, as long as the protocol implementation is open source free software, the issuer concept is severely demoted to be almost irrelevant. It only makes residual sense in order to ascertain the existence and reliability of a developer team in charge of maintenance.

I actually write about stablecoin and basecoin, recognizing that redefining bitcoin will surely be impractical. A new cryptocurrency is probably needed... but I would love to salvage bitcoin from the decline of non-Hayek Monies ;-)

I am already having such an hard time in selling this unfamiliar but very easy idea, that I would be tempted to say I do not advocate a mindset change at all. Instead the implementation details should be not disclosed with people not familiar with the nature of monetary policy, and the Hayek Money experiment should be carried out until complete success. Only later details should be revealed ;-)

Today you know the number of unit currency you know, but prices change, right? Well at least in my proposal the situation is specular, probably unfamiliar, but not worse.
In reality I try to make clear in my paper (sec 6.2) that what I am suggesting is completely equivalent to what every central bank does today, just adapted to the blockchain as a multiplier of the monetary stock. The only difference is that when central banks create new money they do not distribute it to everybody. When they tighten the monetary base they remove currency units from those who need to borrow. Pretty unfair, and they want everybody not to realize the extent of this theft disguised as service to the economy.
Bitcoin does not suffer from this theft, but completely gives up on monetary policy losing price stability.
I will try to make this point clearer in the next paper revision.

I am going to expand section 6.4 to better answer this point. Please check back at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2425270 on monday for a revisited version of the paper.

thank you I will fix it in the next forthcoming version.

The paper made it into the shortlist for the Blockchain Awards of the Bitcoin Foundation Conference 2014, category Visionary Academic Paper.

The funny part is that Nakamoto's paper is included too. Hey! Einstein is not supposed to be nominated for the Albert Einstein award! There is no competition. Now if only Satoshi would show up to receive the Award...

Since Satoshi appearance is unlikely, and instead I will be attending the conference, I could appreciate if the large silent majority of my enthusiastic supporters joins forces and votes for my paper at
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XGPghf1OsdgTmrsiEscWqcPjssfDX3u8IE-PBOLebc4/viewform

If you would rather vote for Satoshi, I might concede to your preference.

No disrespect for the other shortlisted paper "On the origins of Bitcoin" by Konrad Graf: [url]http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/2013/10/23/on-the-origins-of-bitcoin-my-new-work-on-bitcoin-and-monetar.html[url]

at 128% annual volatility I am seriously worried about your definition of normal :-)

This is an unfounded claim. Cryptocurrencies have been adopted so far by "just" some hundreds of thousands of people for a very limited part of their wealth. If billions of people are going to use it, cryptocurrency value is going to skyrocket beyond imagination. Price instability is going to be as dramatic in the coming years as it has been in the last years.

I agree. This has little to do with the core of my paper.

Sorry but you are off-track here.  Stable price does not mean stable value (please read the paper if this point is not clear). A stable price currency has always been the holy grail of every economic theory. Hayek Money is such a monumental achievement.

I will work on a one page introduction, longer than the abstract, shorter than the whole paper.

I especially like the kind used by Satoshi Nakamoto and Friedrich Hayek. Moreover, they might help to cure short attention span ;-)

great.

please notice that while the structure and content are stable, I'm actively fine-tuning the narrative and incorporating some peer-reviewing, so you might be better off downloading just before reading.

I've received some feedback at http://redd.it/24p2qt, but nothing more than quick reactions to the abstract so far. At 35+ pages it is surely not a casual reading, but it can be a rewarding one.

I look forward to comments

I've been working on the proposal for a cryptocurrency with an embedded smart monetary policy to ensure price stability

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2425270
Last revision: May 8th 2014

Hayek Money: The Cryptocurrency Price Stability Solution

The Bitcoin protocol has enabled competition between digital cryptocurrencies and traditional legal tender fiat currencies. Despite impressive cryptocurrency adoption rate, dramatic deflationary price instability has thwarted affirmation of the cryptocurrency leadership. Price stability can be achieved by dynamically rebasing the outstanding amount of money: the number of currency units in every digital wallet is adjusted instead of each single unit changing its value. The apparent awkwardness of this new monetary policy paradigm is discussed at length, proving that its only real novelty is about fairness and effectiveness. The proposed monetary base adjustment has neutral impact on the overall wallet wealth, as it does not introduce any arbitrary distortion into the intrinsic value dynamics of the wallet. The adjustment is based on a commodity price index determined with a resilient consensus process that does not rely on central third party authorities. It is posited in this paper that a digital cryptocurrency adopting such monetary policy is Hayek Money, so named from the Nobel Prize-winning economist: namely the best money ever devised, the new good money standard providing stable prices for a new economic era.

Ferdinando M. Ametrano