There will always be people that will try to control an economy using monetary policies, rather than let money be the reflection of an economy. This only creates lies and lies can not go on forever.
To be more specific, I believe arbitrary money policies like demurrage coerce people into changing their economic behaviors. I say coerce, because they are effictively forced to spend their money whereas they might have otherwise saved it to buy something later.
This creates a situations where goods and services are being baught for the wrong reasons. People try to get rid of their money instead of making sensible economic decisions. To pick an example, a family father might decide to spend all of his monthly income instead of saving some for sending his kids to college. It creates a lie, because people act differently than they would otherwise do.
Money should be as neutral as possible and should not get into the way of making economical decisions. And as far as the money circulation argument goes, good money circulation should be the result of a healthy economy. It doesn't work the other way around.
The good news is that inflationary/demurrage based currencies can only be widely adopted at gunpoint. In a free money economy where actors can transact in the currency of their choice, value-retaining currencies will prevail. In any case, time will tell.
Let me challenge that a bit. Is it coercion if the coin is a voluntary unit that can be selected for adoption based on parameters like demurrage that can be understood up front? Especially since it is likely there will be ever more ways to turn FRC into another coin/fiat that does not have demurrage. At this point I think that coerce is too strong a word, right now FRC is a choice, it only has the potential to be coercion if someone is forced to transact in FRC in some way. Persuade, or "assisting the user in tricking themselves to do the right thing" (like all the crazy stuff ppl do to remember/force themselves to go to the gym) may also be accurate descriptions. I agree that it is arbitrary at time of currency creation, but it is a known quantity (and generally fixed) before mass adoption happens. Your second point assumes goods/services that are only available for FRC, if the vendor takes fiat or another one does for the same commodity you have a market force that will push you to buy from the vendor that offers the better deal. In this example you have to do the cost/benefit analysis of using FRC with one vendor at his price with fiat at another vendor for the same item. If "net item price" in FRC is more than 5% less (if you only turn over your FRC once a year, far less if you just keep liquid cash as FRC and convert the rest) than the fiat price, then you are better off using FRC, but if it is more expensive then maybe you don't spend your FRC that day. We are talking about 50/1000 coins a year, so waiting a few days to find a good deal in FRC will only cost a fraction of a Freicoin a day. If you turn over 100% of your FRC every month I doubt you will worry about it beyond converting some funds if there are left-over FRC that are not budgeted. Your example is about incenting savings, which is not what FRC is trying to do (except in as much that it incents you to convert your long term funds into a better currency.) So are the goods and services being bought for the "wrong" reasons, or is it just one factor (others include price, promotions, advertising) pushing you towards spending? Good money always naturally follows with a good economy?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1534.0Industrial Revolution England is a pretty strong argument against the absolute link between good money and a good economy (or innovation.) I'm pretty sure that money can be just about anything, but it has to circulate, no matter how "good" or "bad" it is. Baseball/Pokemon/etc. cards are horrible money, but you see them being used as loan collateral and exchange medium on the playground. Wide adoption with a currency means something different that with a lot of technologies, I think it is that because money is an intensely local (physical or virtual locations) phenomenon, and seeing a currency go global is the exception rather than the rule. Personally I think that value-retaining currencies have an advantage right now because of economic conditions, if liquidity is king in the 2020's then it might flip over to some degree. Either way your point about force is 100% correct, so we have a relatively free market to observe. |
|
|
|
There will always be people that will try to control an economy using monetary policies, rather than let money be the reflection of an economy. This only creates lies and lies can not go on forever.
Is that relevant to the discussion to some way, or just a standard piece of dogma you like to share? Whom? Which policies? Which money? What economy? What lies? Why not? I truly am interested in your logic here, but there is nothing specific in your post. |
|
|
|
I can simulate FRC for you. Give me x BTC and in a year (or whenever you want) I will give you some of them back (95% back for period of 1 year, prorated for shorter periods).
Hell I won't even keep the 5%, I will just send it to the miners as a tx fee.
No, if you simply hold the coins that does not simulate demurrage. Not unless your coins were also subject to demurrage as well, and everybody else's too. The positive effects of demurrage are observed at the macroeconomic scale. One person providing negative-interest loans is a very different (and useless) experiment. So how exactly is FRC different than this "experiment" you reference? For one you would have to issue some sort of fungable unit that I can use to trade with others, locking my money away is not why I would be using FRC. You would also have to agree to cash out me, or any of my friends or their friends (etc) at a prorated amount at any time. This does not even get into the macro/micro issue, your scenario is an invalid comparison on the face of it, otherwise it would not be a reasonably good joke. |
|
|
|
No. I sent you 401.  Ty. Bonus! I see them coming in, thanks! |
|
|
|
deal. send LTC here LdxPJWufcwvHuaWEc8uHUpKaiQ5QUXCKZU
Sent: Status: 0/unconfirmed, broadcast through 8 nodes Date: 1/1/2013 23:46 To: BowJob https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134176.msg1429977;topicseen#msg1429977 LdxPJWufcwvHuaWEc8uHUpKaiQ5QUXCKZU Debit: -15.00 LTC Net amount: -15.00 LTC Transaction ID: 2a1b92c8091b17c777d1455fff95bfce72541b2f21e33cdfbac95692f8e5eb51 Please send the 400FRC to 1ScrybeSNcjqgpPeYNgvdxANArqoC6i5u I've got 15 more to spend if you want to do it again. |
|
|
|
anyone
Again? 400FRC/15LTC. |
|
|
|
What puzzles me is how freicoin is ever expected to take off and gain a wide user-base.
You are 100% correct, they have a huge challenge in finding a use case. Honestly this is one reason I'm defending their decision to distribute a large number of coins through a grant system. I can think of several uses like rewards-points that work if you have a large initial supply to give out promotionally, and if they are never used the value will slowly seep back in. One key to long term success will be to either have the project mine themselves, or cater in some way to the mining community to get the mining proceeds back into the non-mining community. It's the same problem as coinage in England during the Industrial Revolution. Coins flowed to London and stayed there, and the country as a whole was suffering a lack of small change that resulted in private local currencies that pick up the slack. Currencies are mostly local in some way, I think FRC and other bitcoin forks are going to get drawn to a locality (either physical or online community type) or more and more localities will create their own cryptocurrancies. I don't think we are going to see a few BTC clones, I think we are going to see thousands of coins/notes/certificates/coupons/shares of every description. |
|
|
|
I'm shouting, cause I've looked over an hour and I couldnt find shit. There is TMI on the alternative cryptocurancies, and all I got was www.freicoin.org.  Thank you for the www.freico.in link!  I wanted to be sure, this was post #5 on the first page of the first thread. where u get these from?? got a link to the client / daemon? and whitepaper, pools etc?
website: http://freico.in/Forums: www.freicoin.orgGithub: https://github.com/freicoin/freicoinThe forums are a mess, I'm still trying to sort it out, here's a quick dump. It was referenced in a "lost bitcoins" conversation recently, so I grabbed the client (released on 12-21-12) and started solo mining. I'm still looking for more information such as the coin limit (if any) (100 million) but I know this much... It's been in the works a while: Original project announcement thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3816.0Article from June http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/06/freicoin-occupys-online-curren.htmlFailed Indiegogo pitch: http://www.indiegogo.com/freicoinBeta started this fall, and the chain was reset on 12-21-12 for production. It's an odd critter. It's a demurrage based currency where your coins are constantly losing 4.89%/year which is paid to miners as a subsidy. It's brainchild came out of the 99% movement so it's aimed at disincentivising hoarding and lowering interest rates. I don't quite get how this could work with other currencies in existence, but the slow 4.89% seep rate may not matter too much in the end. It may just be like bitcoin but with skewed interest rates and less desire to hold. |
|
|
|
I'm saying that they are cronies and as such give em to other cronies.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/croniesSo they give them to friends, what's wrong with that? I've been assuming that you are attempting to hang the typical negative connotation on that word, but if I remove my preconception your description sounds pretty good. Are you trying to get them to setup a "greenfield" social network of freicoin users instead of chasing a community with a common interest? If they give all the coins to their friends, and then they pump/dump they are screwing their friends. So which is it? Are they doing a pump/dump (where they should gather in as many non-cronies as possible to dupe) or are they conspiring to keep their marbles to themselves? If it really is the latter, why do you care? Also, what do you think is the "right" way to distribute coins? |
|
|
|
You seem to be under the impression that we do not understand exponential decay. Of course the currency will never go away. But that's also the reason why the freicoin foundation subsidy is such a bad idea.
They (or the people who were sponsored by them) would be in control of the majority of the currency for a long time (over a decade).
If FRC were implemented without any unnecessary centralization there wouldn't be that much opposition, and certainly not from me.
WTF? 3 years!!!!! not "over a decade" We covered this yesterday. Are you purposefully spreading misinformation? Are you? Three years is the amount of time the foundation subsidy gonna accumulate. The half-life of the accumulated amount is significantly longer than that. I see, you are implying that the folks that get the FRC from the foundation will be holding the coins until they evaporate? You are getting too far ahead of reality, there is no sign that the foundation will be interested in giving coins to folks that just hold the coins as they evaporate, they could require 100% disbursement within a 1 year timeframe of granting and your "over a decade" would be dead wrong. There are a number of scenarios that allow the foundation to do it's job and close down (or revert to a booster club) in less than 5 years. You don't know for sure how long the coins will be out there, and who will hold them. Even claiming that there will be an effect of "over a decade" is a bit specious given the desire for very high liquidity for the coinbase. L8er H8er |
|
|
|
You seem to be under the impression that we do not understand exponential decay. Of course the currency will never go away. But that's also the reason why the freicoin foundation subsidy is such a bad idea.
They (or the people who were sponsored by them) would be in control of the majority of the currency for a long time (over a decade).
If FRC were implemented without any unnecessary centralization there wouldn't be that much opposition, and certainly not from me.
WTF? 3 years!!!!! not "over a decade" We covered this yesterday. Are you purposefully spreading misinformation?
The test on what to be with FRC will be what happens afterwards. I am not particulary fond of it because of the 80% premine which still gonna be 40% after 15 years.
Are you sure about that? I thought the 80% coins (80M) for the Foundation was fully funded in the first 3 coin-years, not over the whole distribution lifetime. Checking on IRC... Well again, that it is supposed to be distributed changes nothing. They could spent all the premine as "bounties" within a month and it will still be essentially cronie capitalism. The premine is totally unnecessary. We demonstrated proposals where the entirety of the currency could be distributed in a decentalized manner within weeks, but they not gonna do it. People always have to learn it the hard way, why be honest when you could rip somebody off? I'm not sure what point you think I was trying to make, I was just pointing out the egregious factual error that you were spreading. Agree or disagree, the coins have to get out there somehow, and it seems that there was more than enough weight against "just another miner coin" (pun intended) distribution model. [16:30] <maaku> scrybe: yes
[16:31] <maaku> there are 320 foundation addresses, rotated every 504 blocks
[16:31] <maaku> 504*320 = 161280 blocks = 160 weeks of block time = approx 3 years
[16:32] <maaku> after that, the the foundation split disappears and it's 100% miner subsidy
So after about 3 years the foundation has all the FRC it's ever going to get from the direct subsidy. If you want to keep it honest I'm sure that the foundation could use a volunteer watchdog to police actual execution to plan on grants, but it sounds like you have already passed judgement. To my knowledge nobody has ever really tried to build a functional non-profit to handle a grant proposal/review model to distribute coins. They have a high bar to get over, but personally I don't think it's hopeless. It's certainly going to be worth a bucket of popcoin! |
|
|
|
The only thing that has to be agreed upon is to work together. If you do not understand that it's really better you put me on ignore.
Please do, again you are not "invited" anyway.
I only asked you not to be insulting, you can be as wrong as you like. I love a good spirited debate, but not a debate with someone who has had too many good spirits. So your governance model is "let the community vote on every little thing?" That's nice for you, let me know how that goes. Hopefully it will only take a couple years to get a basic outline together, and another couple to build a consensus. You have still managed to avoid most of my questions, one I really am interested in your answer on is "Why does money need to store value over the long term?" I'm actually kind of amazed that you will abuse folks like this and then talk about community. At this rate, you are not going to have a lot of friends left by the time you get anything accomplished. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if there is an interesting conversation in this thread, but I'm not holding my breath. Happy New Year! |
|
|
|
There will always be terms, but to be frank, your terms on FRC is just ridiculous. Can't wait to see it die as it's not gonna last anything since coins will expire. It's a coin with no value, so sellers will end up losing money and leaving buyers on the winning side. This is just a scam. What it really is a scam bomb ticking and ticking and will explode once all the coins expire.
This is your opinion and you can vote with your feet (or coins) by staying away and not accepting FRC for transactions. Please be certain, I'm not calling your judgement on this into question, or your right to form your own opinion. I'm mostly in interested observer mode myself with a medium sized stake of early coins that will take a long time to evaporate. Calling it a scam is a bit early I think, so far the actions of the developers have been above board, and I read maaku as a "True Believer" which means that we should see him crack before he breaks (IMHO, based personal experience with the type.) In fact we are likely to see him ride it into the ground and for a year or 2 after that if it fails. The other thing to realize is that the coins don't go away. No outputs are ever removed from circulation. Instead the prorate demurrage is applied (at 4.89% per year) based on the blockheight of the current and last transaction. This means that if I hold FRC for a day I lose ~.01337% (FYI, I used continual compounding, I think the 1337 is a coincidence not by design) or 0.1337 FRC per 1000 FRC. Even after a year I've lost less than 50 FRC/1000. So not exactly a drastic threat if you hold some FRC for a bit. What it all comes down to is the same phrase we use about Bitcoin all the time "it has no inherent value," it requires a user base to build the value based upon how the user base wants/needs to use the currency. |
|
|
|
Things like Inflation, deflation, tx fees, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, demurrage, mining subsidies, and block reward halving are all terms that you are offering the market for your currency.
All of it can be subject to blockchain voting including the source code and the purpose of the project. The red pill... But I wouldn't do that here, I want to stay as far away from idiots like you as conveniently possible. I intend to be self-sufficient even before you know of it's existence. That's why satoshi released bitcoin in such an obscure location, and it almost worked out... You are either willfully ignoring, or missing my point completely. You are creating a set of terms and conditions for any coin that you create. You may use a mechanism to create those terms that includes community feedback and voting, but that in ITSELF is an arbitrary decision setting the terms of making other decisions. Either you have very little experience with project governance, are putting me on, or are just trolling. Either way I'm about done putting up with it, please stop insulting me if you want to have a discussion, but please do keep it up if you want to be ignored by yet another member of the forum. |
|
|
|
Go ahead and fork it if you want to create a version with your own terms.
I might actually really do a fork, but there won't be any "terms". Bullshit! There are always terms and conditions behind the scenes even if they are not spelled out in a document. You define the terms of the coin contract with the functionality you allow and mechanisms you use. You are creating terms to a contract for a commodity. If those terms are "whatever I feel like" then they are unbelievably loose and I won't trust the currency. Things like Inflation, deflation, tx fees, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, demurrage, mining subsidies, and block reward halving are all terms that you are offering the market for your currency.
One cannot even use FRC for a store of value if one is willing to commit resources to "guard" them. The "foundation" is a superfluous concept only there to enable cronies to exert power over the community.
Such a situation within Bitcoin would result in a public uproar instantly but in the strange world of alternate cryptocurrencies it's ok as long as the participants thing there will be a bigger fool than them.
Your first point: So what if it is not intended to store value long term? Why does a currency have to store value long term? Perhaps it can be used to exchange value without indefinite storage. Your second point; So what? The folks behind the foundation and the currency should have no say in how it gets deployed and used? They want to start it off on the right foot and were up front about that, bitcoin spent a long time in organic growth that altcoins generally try to avoid. It also helps FRC to develop a niche where it way better complement bitcoin or others. By your arguments the Apache Foundation and the many others like it are just as bad. Why are you expecting open source projects in this space to have different governance challenges and adopt different solutions? |
|
|
|
But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.
I donīt think the 5% demurrage is necessarily set for all future either. Just think uf the foundation suggested to lower it to lets say 3.5%. Which average holder of Freicoin would the protest this change? Not many...
If the average holder would prefer 3.5% over 5% wouldn't it make sense they would prefer 0% over 3.5%? There already is a much more widely adopted 0% coin. Of course the very idea the foundation can choose the demurage = inflation rate is kinda scary right? Why not just change the name of the foundation to the federal reserve, pass laws making freicoin legal tender and you have just re-invented the current broken system. Incorrect, the Foundation is there to distribute coins, not to manage a demurrage rate. 4.89% is here to stay unless a consensus of miners (EDIT: maybe a hard fork, I'm getting conflicting answers) are willing to change the rate. good joke, but based on BS info. |
|
|
|
If your coins expire, doesn't that make the coin itself useless. It's kinda cool that it expires like food at a store, but this isn't intended to be food but rather a currency. Money shouldn't expire, the products should.
Simran, the concept is this: certain economic problems can be solved if you eliminate (or reduce) the "store of value" property of money. It doesn't make the money useless. Money would become strictly a medium of exchange and undesirable to hoard. Whenever you get money, you would be motivated to spend it or invest it immediately. This coin does not promote savings in any form. You are better off owning Federal Reserve notes. Unless we have massive inflation attack (yeah right, not with the current bunch), then we might see something interesting... |
|
|
|
Excuse me for the noob question, but I want to start mining FRC fast and I cant find out how to make a wallet.
How can you make your own wallet for FRC and is there a Freicoin_qt
You don't have to shout... You might want to head over to the alternate cryptocurrencies subforum and read up there, there are 3-4 posts going right now including a fairly long one I started on day 2. The public facing site where you can get the client and more information is freico.inThere is also a nascent online wallet option under development at endlessfreico.inLastly if you need help, please stop by #freicoin on freenode IRC. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Hilarious! The three years are the time period where the foundation is payed an income which is equals accumulated to 80% of the currency, a little less is actually spendable since the 'income' is is subject to demurrage as well, but still that is an ridiculous amount. I haven't realized they are such hypocrites. You seem to keep using the word paid, as if the foundation was earning a wage. This is a donation that is built into the mining contract, and like it or hate it, I fail to see how being upfront with their plans is hipocracy. Now IF they actually distribute the funds to their buddies who put in ideas, rather than spreading the wealth around, then I will join the chorus. Right now they are on plan, I'll keep watching. Go ahead and fork it if you want to create a version with your own terms. |
|
|
|
The test on what to be with FRC will be what happens afterwards. I am not particulary fond of it because of the 80% premine which still gonna be 40% after 15 years.
Are you sure about that? I thought the 80% coins (80M) for the Foundation was fully funded in the first 3 coin-years, not over the whole distribution lifetime. Checking on IRC... Well again, that it is supposed to be distributed changes nothing. They could spent all the premine as "bounties" within a month and it will still be essentially cronie capitalism. The premine is totally unnecessary. We demonstrated proposals where the entirety of the currency could be distributed in a decentalized manner within weeks, but they not gonna do it. People always have to learn it the hard way, why be honest when you could rip somebody off? I'm not sure what point you think I was trying to make, I was just pointing out the egregious factual error that you were spreading. Agree or disagree, the coins have to get out there somehow, and it seems that there was more than enough weight against "just another miner coin" (pun intended) distribution model. [16:30] <maaku> scrybe: yes
[16:31] <maaku> there are 320 foundation addresses, rotated every 504 blocks
[16:31] <maaku> 504*320 = 161280 blocks = 160 weeks of block time = approx 3 years
[16:32] <maaku> after that, the the foundation split disappears and it's 100% miner subsidy
So after about 3 years the foundation has all the FRC it's ever going to get from the direct subsidy. If you want to keep it honest I'm sure that the foundation could use a volunteer watchdog to police actual execution to plan on grants, but it sounds like you have already passed judgement. To my knowledge nobody has ever really tried to build a functional non-profit to handle a grant proposal/review model to distribute coins. They have a high bar to get over, but personally I don't think it's hopeless. It's certainly going to be worth a bucket of popcoin! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
