Beware: Freicoin users taking over for pump & dump

[Ignore@YourPeril]

I´ve upped my offer of contributing to a clone as you have suggested, I´m in with 1000 FRC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133020.msg1428673#msg1428673

[bitcool]

As an investor I don't see any reason to touch a currency with high demurrage, OTOH, not everyone want to be investor and Freicoin has its reason to exist, just like BDSM is part of our culture.

Indeed, from investing point of view, they should be called monetary masochism. 
 

[Ignore@YourPeril]

But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.

I don´t 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...

[DeathAndTaxes]

But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.

I don´t 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.

[creativex]

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.

They'll also require the authorization to use force to impose their will on the masses to make Federal Reserve Coin a success.

[Ignore@YourPeril]

If the average holder would prefer 3.5% over 5% wouldn't it make sense they would prefer 0% over 3.5%?  [...] Of course the very idea the foundation can choose the demurage = inflation rate is kinda scary right?

It is easy to argue against 0% three years from now: it is hard to imagine that the network can be secured only on voluntary tx fees then (unless it takes off 100xbitcoin...), so 0% is not realistic.

I will grant you that he interval 5-1% is a bit scary, as it is only founded in an economic theory and not anything directly related to the network. The main thing is however that any successful _increase_ of this demurrage is hard to imagine; it will even be a hard sell to take it back up to 5% after being 4% for a month.

[Simran]

It's the reason why the forum section is filled with FRC related sales. The creators didn't think about this? Why didn't they just open a market place to stop this nonsense spam? They know the coins expire. I think FRC is just a waste of time, and wasn't though out well. I'm sure if a little more time was put into it, it would be a better coin with some value. Right now, just no.

[ElectricMucus]

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".


I already explained the mechanism of demurrage could be voted upon by the users of the currency and there will be a Nash Equilibrium from the motivation to get more income and keep the savings valueable. I wouldn't exactly call it demurrage though since the concept would involve the equivalent of guarding the currency with hashing power to protect it from the effects of demurrage.
But I wouldn't create anything if it wouldn't supply it's own version control system for the source code. I'll be completely decentralized to the point where the source-code itself is subject to democratic decisions within the block chain. And I wouldn't start it if I wouldn't be certain it will be the dominant system. Destroying FRC for the lulz might sound attractive though since they need to be tought that:
You don't simply "premine" coins.

[smoothie]

But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.

I don´t 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.

+1 LOL well said

[smoothie]

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".


I already explained the mechanism of demurrage could be voted upon by the users of the currency and there will be a Nash Equilibrium from the motivation to get more income and keep the savings valueable. I wouldn't exactly call it demurrage though since the concept would involve the equivalent of guarding the currency with hashing power to protect it from the effects of demurrage.
But I wouldn't create anything if it wouldn't supply it's own version control system for the source code. I'll be completely decentralized to the point where the source-code itself is subject to democratic decisions within the block chain. And I wouldn't start it if I wouldn't be certain it will be the dominant system. Destroying FRC for the lulz might sound attractive though since they need to be tought that:
You don't simply "premine" coins.

+1 the Federal Reserve knows abut "premining" it's called increasing their balance sheet or running the printing presses.

[scrybe]

But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.

I don´t 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.

[ElectricMucus]

But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.

I don´t 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 are willing to change the rate.

good joke, but based on BS info.

No U

They can't change it without a hardfork. But that's not even the problem.
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.

[scrybe]

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?

[ElectricMucus]

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.

It's possible 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...

[Simran]

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?

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.

[scrybe]

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.

[Simran]

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.

Ignoring does nothing, their post is still there, and it shows if you actually have the balls to prove the other person wrong.

[ElectricMucus]

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.

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.

[Impaler]

I already explained the mechanism of demurrage could be voted upon by the users of the currency and there will be a Nash Equilibrium from the motivation to get more income and keep the savings valueable

And I already pointed out too you on our forums that having Miners vote on demurrage would not work because the equilibrium reached would not be a reflection to the liquidity premium, all it would show is the degree to which miners are able to sell their coins to other and then fleece them back again with an excessive demurrage rate.  Sure you reach some kind of Nash Equilibrium when ever two opposing motivations compete but that doesn't mean its the socially optimum, and as your empowering only one group to vote it's naively obvious that the non-miners get shafted.

I've thought about this extensively and the solution is not remotely simple, I never found a solution that satisfied me but I believe markets may be part of it, but only if they are structured to actually find the liquidity premium which involves solving the Fisher equation.  I advised you to read our extensive discussion about demurrage which show our thought processes, we categorically rejected any centralized system of macro-economic management equivalent to a FED reserve board.

You do not seem to have done the requested reading or even responded to my rebuttal on our forums.

[ElectricMucus]

I already explained the mechanism of demurrage could be voted upon by the users of the currency and there will be a Nash Equilibrium from the motivation to get more income and keep the savings valueable

And I already pointed out too you on our forums that having Miners vote on demurrage would not work because the equilibrium reached would not be a reflection to the liquidity premium

But it sure beats a hardcoded amount.
You cannot tell if it is optimal until it is tried out. The system I envision has a solution to that too, and if you pay attention to my posts you would already know what it is.