*

[MCStannard]

*

[1714800080]

1714800080

[1714800080]

1714800080

[1714800080]

1714800080

[1714800080]

1714800080

[1714800080]

1714800080

[jimhsu]

userStartCoin = 10+userPrevEndCoin*0.45

Um.. Sybil attack? How will you prevent a single user from creating many addresses to take advantage of the cap?

How do you define a user? Address? (trivial to circumvent) IP address? Proxies and purchase of IPs. Another form of verification?

Any non-proportional tax system (which this is) can't work without verification of identity (i.e. centralization).

[jimhsu]

Yes, but you could copy and paste wallet.dat files. You could try writing stuff in conf files and registry, but someone could change that, run a VM, run on different machines, run in different locations, give some to a friend. You could try taxing coins below a certain velocity (that are hoarded instead of spent), but people could schedule transfers between wallets to counter that. Etc etc. Ends up being a cat and mouse game.

IF you manage to make a decentralized, bulletproof reputation system, a lot of people would like to talk to you. That advance would be on the order of the original Bitcoin.

[Littleshop]

Would it be possible to limit the number of addresses created per client?

Maybe but pointless.  VM's, farms of computers (classrooms) or worse BOTNETS will LOVE this currency.  A botnet is now worth all of the coin it can collect by creating addresses one unique per computer.  A classroom tech can put it on every machine in the room/building.

So far every possible idea on how to define what a person is and give them a share, fails the botnet test.  

[jimhsu]

Homework: Read the qubic thread, then come back and explain how this will solve the problems proposed there.

For any validation scheme that I can think of, you also get the Byzantine generals problem. Bitcoin's PoW scheme (as said on that page) was key to solving the Byzantine generals problem. With this redistribution scheme, you introduce another one.

Wikipedia has a lot of good reading material...

[jimhsu]

Thinking is good. It leads to creative solutions to pressing problems.

[erk]

It costs money to mine coins, electricity and hardware are not free. This encourages miners gravitate to the most profitable coins via rankings like Coinchoose.com. If you have a tax then the coin will fall down the profitability rankings and you wont get many miners. The top coins for the day get the bulk of the hash rate.

It's just the way things work atm.

[theprofileth]

why not have it so that you must mine for an account
by this i mean, the number of accounts available could be determined by the number of coins in circulation thus you dont bankrupt the system though this doesnt address account spamming.
But seriously onto what I have to say
You should separate the population into 2 categories, citizens and denizens; one exists and the other contributes.
You must then separate citizens into 2 categories, populus pluribus and oligarchs; those who have and those who want.
Denizens should be subject to standard tax policies in addition to a prefunded estate tax (cause they will die at some point and we don't know when that is other than account activity) and do not receive subsidies for being below the predefined coin amount. Furthermore why not institute a basic bank policy, balances below value x are penalized. So lets say that we instead penalize accounts below the threshold to avoid wasting coins on essentially useless leeches.
However I suggest that the value be any account below 10 coins.
The issue for me currently is I don't know how many coins are going to be generated so I have to guess really with the numbers but yeah.
Furthermore what should define citizenship should be account activity.
Account activity should be key to citizenship IE you aren't part of the community unless you sent or received coins over the past x cycles.
Citizens should be subject to all previously stated policies as you mention in the OP. However I suggest that the base account should be 100 coins and thus anyone with more than 10 coins and less than 100 will start to gradually move towards 100. This gradual increase itself will not be taxed.
Oligarchs are those who at any point control more than 25% of the coins in circulation will also be subject to demurring on their sends and receives to help the system function and not run out of cash.
^and here is where I ran out of steam.
To be honest after writing this I really feel like the whole exercise is sorta tired. I am just gonna stick with mining bitcoins until this actually comes out and then we may see.

[seleme]

I feel so dumb when I read people talking about technicalities of cryptocurrency..

[xan_The_Dragon]

reserved

[GSnak]

I predict great success for commiecoin. Don't forget to shoot the dissidents.

[GSnak]

The main thing you need to answer is "why?".

[DigitalCurrencyConsultant]

Thanks for posting your thoughts.

However i feel that is down in many countries on the planet already.

Your tax system = Bad Idea

[GSnak]

Areas to develop

• Mining incentive

Srsly? You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, next time start with "mining incentive" then work your way down from there. You're off your rocker if you think a notable portion of people with a $6-7000 mining investment and $25 per day electric bill are going to divert their resources toward this so they can wake up the next morning with less than what they started with. If for some reason this project ever did gain traction I'd load up the client just for the lulz and watch as other people's money found it's way into my account (in reality that wouldn't happen since no one would mine it). One of the major draws of BTC is that it keeps other people out of your wallet. You're redistributing currency not for charity, or even specifically for the "needy", but just for the hell of it. On the bright side you've successfully addressed the pre-mine dilemma.

Oh, and the wealthy do invest money. It's called capital gains, and the tax rates are significantly lower than ordinary income, thus the incentive generate most of your income by this method.

[TheSwede75]

Dear JR member. If you are going to release a coin, maybe google 'socialistic' for definition first.
Best,
Everyone.

[GSnak]

I think a good start would be an incentive program wherein miners were compensated according to the MH/s (or KH/s) they apply to the network. For example, someone who mines at rate of 20MH/s would receive 20 coins, and someone who mines at a rate of 40MH/s would receive 40. Also to improve efficiency the miners could pool their resources into... let's call them "pools", and receive compensation based on their contribution toward the common good of the pool. I think this method would find success and is something worth exploring further.

[GSnak]

The best way to increase possession of the currency beyond the realm of miners is to increase the supply of goods and services available to be paid for directly with the electronic currency. By foregoing the need to convert BTC/LTC back to fiat we can expand participation in the crypto-economy to those who produce a good or service miners feel is just compensation for their invested resources. I know a lot of people are working on this and it's something that's steadily improving, there are already a lot of people who have electronic currency who never mined it.

[Alpaca John]

Quickly reading through it I like your idea, but:

-I think it needs a flat rate. There's nothing you can do stopping people from having loads of wallets with 99 coins.
-I don't like the idea of demurage, or whatever it's spelled like. Why not just make people pay for consumption instead, ie. (flatrate) transaction fee's are just fine, no? 0.01% of each transaction, or whatever.
-Use these fee's to pay of the network, but maybe in a proof of stake manner? I believe proof of stake doesn't have a cap anyways, basicly meaning inflation will eventually take care of the oligargs.
-Not a fan of the name either.

Wait, am I just describing PPCoin now, perhaps?

Just thinking out loud, really...

[Francesco]

If a redistributive system could establish itself via free individual choices, we wouldn't need a state.

But of course 'poor' people will prefer redistributive systems... and 'rich' ones the non-redistributive ones. If this ever become the standard for daily payment, we would have Bitcoin as "tax heaven": you only keep 99 (or 10 if you are very greedy) Tencoins in your wallet, maybe thousands Bitcoins, and only convert into Tencoin when you need to spend them.

[Alpaca John]

I believe I explained the 'estate tax' poorly. It is effective across all wallets and is proportional to the amount of time spent inactive. This is the mechanism which in theory will prevent users abusing the system by using a large amount of wallets.

Using a flat rate cost on transactions would be against the concept of the coin. Transaction fee's deter people from using their money.

The name can change and I shall make a poll so people can vote for a name they feel is appropriate.

I'm sorry if you've answered these questions/points already, but:

-Why would I want to buy a coin that will diminish in value at all? I'll just buy bitcoin or whatever instead. This is an incentive you need to think about because it's pretty crucial, I think. This is also why I don't like demurage.

-Isn't the economic model that holds that whe need everlasting (exponential) growth exactly the one we need to get away from? I'm not saying that it is per se, but I do think so at this moment. Everlasting growth is just not healthy, and I'd argue not even possible. We all need to start consuming less, not more. I think.

-A flat rate would still have the biggest spenders/holders pay the most fee's. Which seems fair to me, since they benefit from the project the most.