But as I said, mining validates the need for new currency. Currency will only be given away when people are mining, and mining is not ever required to be happening like it is in bitcoin and its derivatives. Security of the network is completely separate from mining.


As we have seen? We have seen nothing but crony capitalism. The fed doesn't print money and helicopter it into the economy, it prints new money to bail out banks and serve congressional interests.

In addition to that, as I have stated, mining is required before free money will be created. One way or another, as the economy expands, value has to go somewhere. It either goes into existing currency by enriching only those who hold more than average amounts of the currency, or you can use it to enrich a much wider array of people. Including those who might be on the fence about accepting the currency.

We're not talking bitcoin here, we're talking stablecoin. You quote one part of a 5 paragraph post and say I'm focusing on dumping. Are there any specific things you don't think I've addressed, rather than just leaving it open ended and implying a failure to account for something else?

Me neither. You are using the foundation as an excuse for not wasting effort mining. It's reasonable enough, except that if voting has anything to do with mining, it becomes a complete waste of resources again.


I'll take your word for it even though it took me completely by surprise after discussing the demurrage idea with you over several threads, and even registering on your forums. It still does not excuse the fact that this core idea is completely absent from all of your PR media.


Machinated excuse.


Vigilant people who are wasting tons of resources mining, right?

PS - http://freico.in/how/ this page is about as informative as Solidcoin's.

Are we talking about the same bitcoin where greater than 50% of the currency to ever be created is in the hands of <100k people? Where 20% of it is probably in the hands of a few dozen? I don't know how you can possibly make the argument that bitcoin mining is somehow a solution to demand when it is, by design, a choke point of the currency. My concerns are not "more geared towards dumping", they are geared towards providing a stable currency base that is difficult to manipulate by those who mine, those who have coins, or anyone else. This is without resorting to some kind of centralized solution or being tied to hard formulas that will not be able to adapt to reality.

jti, you guys have no credibility whatsoever in my eyes. Last minute completely changing the idea of freicoin to give yourselves all kinds of power. Why should anyone care? Does anyone? What was the point of releasing when you did if you weren't ready to implement whatever system you have planned? Worried about missing the boat? Was Indiegogo giving you deadlines? The actions of your team do not make logical sense to me.

AFAICT, "republicoin" is just "vote for how we spend the money", not anything actually democratic. It does not appear to me that the foundation idea is going anywhere, yet there is no mention of this cornerstone of the freicoin design. You can P2P vote to your heart's content, and maaku can still buy a yacht with it. Not saying that will happen, but I am tired of shady people trying to swindle others in the name of freedom over this cryptocurrency bullshit.

This thread has some very detailed discussion that would be a bit more useful as a sticky, imo.

It is unfortunate that dispelling the idea of being shady crypto banksters is not important to you.

I'm sorry man, but when you completely stop at why it's called a cryptocurrency and then continue with "because that's the way it's set up"--this is in real need of a retake and made me want to stop watching. Even a quick techoblurb about cryptography would have been fine.

edit: after watching a little further, you should spend more time looking at the camera, not the recording of you. just trying to be helpful, not critical

I'm not interested in what Gesellian group-think thinks, I'm interested in why whenever I google freicoin I do not see anything about this foundation or how the currency is being distributed.

You are free to run your currency however you want. But your group keeping this on the down-low makes it seem as if you are ashamed of this feature.

I can understand everything but part (4)

(4) the big premajn plans
(2-3 mils koinov.)
then there are the units
90 +% of the premajna will be sold
wishing to 111% of cost
premajna.
the remainder will profit premajna
project.
Exit the Exchange is not planned
prior to the distribution of premajna.
So no pamp'n'dampa
WILL NOT.


so premine 2-3 million coins, then 90% will be sold to something 111% of the cost of the premine. I can't fully understand that. It sounds vaguely like a market maker. Then you talk about the exchange. Are you trying to keep a price level equal to an existing currency?


Point (1) has many of the same problems as bitcoin:

(1) to be laid on the growth in the number of coins
at 7% per year (or still at 6).
Pure "inflation" but will be less.
Loss of coins, etc. things will be drawn from 7%.


This does not make it easy for the network to grow when it needs to grow. To start gaining acceptance by the world economy, the currency needs to be able to expand to it. 7% supply inflation will cause a lot of deflation because 7% can't keep up with the potential network growth--it could be several thousand times in a year. In my opinion, this will cause people to leave because the currency is a hassle to use (like bitcoin).

Wait, wait wait... instead of "republicoin" you guys came up with "give us all the coinscoin" as a half-way compromise? That's pretty insightful.

When are you guys planning on updating the marketing you have on various places around the internet to include _anything_ about this foundation (including the OP of this thread)? The longer you let this slide, the more you look like the shady crypto banksters that your coin blatantly argues you are (the code, not the webpages stating the exact opposite of course).

I didn't get a very good vibe from you early on in freicoin's development, and there still seems to be no reason to assuage it.

From translating I think the gist was that there will be a market maker, someone with a lot of coins keeping the price stable. But I dunno for sure, it doesn't translate well. Not a particularly decentralized approach though if that's the case.

Welcome to deflationary currency, bro. Might not be all it's cracked up to be.

The Decrits proposal (see sig), among many other fixes for bitcoin's problems, has a section on voting. It was at the very early stages in that document, but I have refined it quite a bit. I think the idea of voting as part of the protocol may be so different that it is shocking to some, but I think it is necessary to avoid the control that the developers would have over the protocol (and perhaps the influence that an exchange, for example, might have over them). Voting power is not determined by held currency or hashpower (though having currency invested is a requirement), but by the people who have provided beneficial and continued service to the network via transferring and validating transactions. Even if there is an Evil Network Takeover (which will take time and lots of money), the network will have the opportunity to split, and the guys on the wrong side will not be allowed to transfer their money to the honest side of the split.

Are you planning on responding to any of the nice posts I've written for you?

At least in Decrits, because of the difficulties associated with minting, you must have both a significantly more efficient piece of hardware AND enough of them to begin a Mint Block AND enough of them to mint a large portion of that block all at once. If they can't, there will be big penalties. This will require a massive, very risky investment. And because the rest of the network knows someone is minting while minting looks unprofitable for all of them, they are given the opportunity to defend currency creation by joining the queue and keeping difficulty normalized. Because creation is limited by transaction activity and there are minimums of time that must pass, this opportunity to defend is specifically designed to exist.

And this is the expected behavior. Unexpected and unprofitable behavior should be acknowledged as a possibility.


I am not sure who you're replying to, and Red has taken a crack, but I will take one as well.

It goes back to game theory. The Evil Guys or whomever may want to lower the value of the coin by minting unprofitably. However, with free coins given away, their unprofitability will be profit in the hands of others. The deeper they want to go, the more significant the investment that needs to be wasted to achieve further instability. This will likely only be accomplished when the network is small. These evil guys will make money for everyone else, and everyone is fairly likely to know what is happening, and no one is really worse for wear other than those who wasted the time, effort, and money to cause the problem. As transaction activity grows, the ability for anyone to do something like this diminishes.

What destruction are you accomplishing when you force other people to profit off of your expense? Evil Guys' attack fails at game theory.


Incorrect. It is validated by those who wasted effort in creating new currency by minting.


It will take some time for an "inertiacoin" to find its sweet spot. The sweet spot may move a few times as, for example, cheap electric economies start minting. But, as the network volume increases, a larger majority of the people around the world will have to be involved in all facets of the currency. Things will normalize. There are two big arguments against your "severe repercussions": 1) those who were already using the network will receive free money to account for losses in the value of each unit (market cap neutral), and 2) it does not affect other assets (this means that the currency will be seen as a "good deal", but only because it is selling for less than its cost to produce, not because it was cheaper than it was before). As the system grows, it will become more and more difficult to try to hide anything. The more you try to hide, the less of an effect you can have.


Speculators in an inertiacoin style market will have no more power over a regular market. They will not be able to manipulate the money supply in the same way they can with bitcoin. Buying large amounts over short periods is the surest way to lose money. Bubbles will not be caused by speculation because everyone can at least have an idea of what it would take them to create currency. This fact can't be hidden. Any short-term instabilities created in a small market will almost invariably benefit the general user base rather than the manipulators, at least if you give money away to transaction activity.

Thanks.


It will probably be over the last 1 year rolling period. Because of the Consensus Block which you are familiar with from encoin, transactional activity is easy to keep known statistics on. If the mint block is 10,000 DCR, 50,000 DCR will be awarded to transactions and 50,000 DCR will be awarded to accounts. Only a small percentage of each will be awarded so that the award is meaningful and difficult to game.

Enough with the facetiousness.

The goal has been to make sure that "the people" can not lose the ability to create the currency. If you allow the quick takeover, which a small number of ASICs could do, you destroy the minting mechanic as a response to changes in the economy. Minting, at least in decrits, is designed to be a short-term quick burst of profit. Perhaps longer-term if there is a serious and ongoing expansion. If ASICs were profitable, everybody would have to buy ASICs. For what? It's completely insane to have a rat race for who can maximize profit short term only to eventually screw themselves over to where they're at the same place as everyone was before. Now the minting is screwed and there will be upcoming massive deflation because no one can mint anymore without a huge slew of ASICs being purchased.

Decrits will attempt to maintain a common level of hardware that needs to be used to create currency. This level will gradually and naturally increase in response to moore's and koomey's "laws". The system will allow those common pieces of hardware to respond to a highly advanced piece of hardware. Hopefully to the point where there is no point making it in the first place. Money HAS TO BE INVESTED in minting. If people have to invest more money than they did before (buying ASICs), that will cause deflation. Severe. People who own a lot of decrits would be willing to cause this problem because they will make oodles of value on hoarding money.

The money supply must be UNMANIPULATABLE. And giving away free coins means that changes to the way coins are minted will have a multiplied effect.


It doesn't care. People create coins or they don't, that's up to them. Starting a new Mint Block will require a lot of investment. If 1 DCR = $1 and a mint block is 10,000 DCR, 500-600 DCR worth of time/hardware/electricity investment must be added to the queue before it will start. If they don't do it, the system doesn't make new coins.


See above.


Decrits does not propose to destroy coins as part of an economic model. It will destroy coins under a few, rare circumstances. An account that hasn't made a spend in 12 years, for example. Bitcoiners may complain all they fricken want, but useless data can not sit around forever. Once every 12 years to make 1 outgoing transaction to preserve your money is not too much to ask.

What you mean to ask is "what to do if there is price inflation?" And the answer is: very little. The price inflation would likely be a result of an economic change, not a problem with minting. I tried to prevent inflation in encoin because it meant that people were probably leaving the currency. But it's just a hack. If people are leaving the currency, making its value look better isn't going to fix anything.


As far as how many coins to create, I detailed that in the post. It is rooted in transaction activity. Transaction activity is charged a percentage fee and is thus strongly disincentivized from making bullshit transactions. I have not come up with exact figures for how transaction activity will be related to Mint Blocks because that will be a huge discussion point when Decrits gets there. The bootstrapping period will also have to work differently.


You focus too heavily on inflation. I do not think that price level inflation will be an issue if the system functions well. Encouraging spending is easy when you give away free money. The only time I foresee price level inflation is when a significant amount of the money supply is tied up in debt and banks start getting shy. Creating currency will become profitable, and the banks will lose their stranglehold on the economy. This will come at a cost of some inflation down the road, unless you propose to tax accounts with lots of money (not gonna happen). However, I expect that debt will never be a significant problem in Decrits. And, with money back in the hands of the people, I believe they will be less inclined to mortgage their lives away and will have wealth spread out so that a bit of inflation will not be disastrous (their other stuff should go up in price, so it's probably a wash). Again, I do not think this is a likely effect, but I can't predict the future and I have no real idea how it would all turn out. But I have thought of a lot of different scenarios.

Hi, I'm Etlase2. I used to be called etlase, but that account was squelched and posts deleted for vehemently speaking out against bitcoin just prior to the 2011 bubble and collapse.

Being of a programmer's mind, I immediately went to create something better. The first four designs were called Encoin, which attempted to associate coin value to the electricity cost required to produce them. During this time, I read hundreds of papers on cryptography, several books on economics, researched various different economic and monetary theories, and argued with many people.

The latest design is Decrits, which has dropped the idea of a coin having any direct relationship with electricity. The link for the proposal is in my signature, but the design has had many overhauls and fleshings-out since then.

I made a post describing how the minting system would work recently, so I will copy and paste it here. I spent tons of hours designing a system different from bitcoin and that would require several pages to explain, so please assume that the things I take for granted have been proposed, in my notes, how to work.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178140.msg1890016#msg1890016


First of all, the energy usage is only one facet. The cost of hardware *does matter*. The human resource cost *does matter*. It doesn't matter what the mhash cost is in real terms is--as long as you can foster competition, people will find ways to do better, and this in turn must raise the difficulty to where the mhash cost is in line with whatever inertiacoin's (potentially original) mhash cost is.

The original way I came up with to foster this competition was to algorithmically change the coin award at certain intervals. During these intervals, miners would be encouraged to lower their output, because if they don't, the difficulty is going to increase. However, more efficient machines would not really be bothered by this and would be able to profit handsomely during this interval. However, for whatever various reasons that could thunk up for this, more efficient machines may not want to or can not oblige, and this could cause a longer-term inflation of the crypto CPI.

I will walk you through what I am currently thinking Decrits will do:

1) It will algorithmically determine the number of coins to be created in the next Mint Block, as I call them.
1a) This number of coins is determined by a percentage of transaction volume over time. (note: for this to matter, transactions must be charged a percentage fee, which in Decrits is 0.01%)
1b) This figure will be difficult and costly to manipulate because it will require significantly increasing the transaction volume of the entire network over a period of a year or more while paying those fees.

2) A Mint Block cannot begin until enough money has been transacted to warrant it.
2a) This will be based on either a (large) percentage, equal to, or a (small) multiplier of the number of coins transacted since the last Mint Block.

3) Once enough money has been transacted, those who wish to create money will have to join a queue to begin the Mint Block.
3a) For the first 25% of the queue, 10% of the individual coin award (the amount each queuer will receive) must be supplied in the currently accepted difficulty with a 10% winning hash and an account number. (note: this can *always* be accomplished in 40-50 bytes because of the account ledger)
3b) For the rest, 5% of the award must be supplied. The most efficient are the most likely to start the next block, but we do not want to unnecessarily raise the difficulty if the majority of people are less efficient, so they get a slight bonus. (This will eventually lead to deflation if we do not account for it, and perhaps because of money supply manipulation.)
3c) Once 75% of the the block's worth has been queued, a minimum amount of time must pass before the queue will close. This figure will be based on some percentage of the the average time it has historically taken to create a Mint Block. (This means that magnitudes more powerful ASICs can not shut others out)
3d) If more than 100% have queued before the minimum amount of time has passed, a random selection of the queued minters will be made to complete the block.

4) Once the block begins, all minters are encouraged to mint at once because:
4a) The coin award is higher the faster you finish. Likely +10% for the top 25%, +5% for the next 25%, -5%, and -10%.
4b) Taking longer than an algorithmically determined amount of time (based on prior blocks) will result in penalties of at least 10% and perhaps more. (e.g. if everybody finished past this time, even the top 25% would still only receive -10% of the promised coin award.)
4c) At some point the block will close, and unminted coins are lost.

5) (Tentative) After the block is over, minters will be randomly assigned to groups (probably of 40) to determine the 10/5/-5/-10 payouts.
5a) This means that there will be groups where ASICs fight ASICs and GPUs fight GPUs (NB: obviously not all of them). This reduces the overall profitability potential of ASICs.


To avoid the p2pool-like data spam, the number of coins mined per queuer must be relatively high. I think the target length for each block will be around 5-10 days. This requires commitment from those minting. It will be annoying. And the fee to join the queue could be completely lost. 50% of those queued will make less than the award.

In addition to all of this, we must eschew mordorcoin and give money away for free. Now we know for damn sure that new money is needed with the difficulties associated with minting. The written decrits proposal proposes giving away 5x of this block of coins to transactions and 5x to existing accounts, both randomly (blocks of accounts will be stored together, and this will be the starting point for awarding free money to them because awarding every account is infeasible in a network of any reasonable size). This area can be nitpicked, but I have come up with some very solid solutions.

In addition to that, because network expansion could easily outpace the time constraints set on Mint Blocks, each successive Mint Block within a defined period will increase the tx/account award further. The second block in a row will award 6x to each. The third will award 7x. This may max out at 10 each, or maybe it could go on continuously (perhaps after 20x the difficulty could start increasing say 3% per block; with so much new money in circulation [especially to transactors], if this causes mild deflation it would likely not have any problems being counteracted). So even in the worst case scenario of everyone instantly switching to ASICs and intentionally not raising the difficulty, designing and producing those ASICs will never be profitable. Plus the inflation has to catch up and raise the average amount of transactions over an extended period, or the ASICs will simply run into a wall where they can not mint for extended periods.