Total different concept for an alternative coin:

[sevenseals]

Maybe this is a better place for my suggestion:
What about a coin where the money supply will not provided by mining? What about a coin where the money supply will be provided by the transfer of a coin? That means: every time when a coin will be spend there will be a bonus for the one who spend the coin. For instance when somebody buy something for coins, he only pay 99% of the price but the salesperson will get the whole 100%. That would be an incentive that the coin will be spent and not leave in the wallet. The thing is that it has to be ensured that one person will have only one address, or that all addresses of one person are linked together. I think it could be a way to make a coin successful.

It would be a kind of freecoin, but nobody lose their money in the wallet. The more the coin will be used the more the coin will be inflated. And when the coin will be used more and more the inflation will be needed to supply enough coins for all payings.

What are your ideas? Is it possible to implement such a coin?

Sorry for my bad english.

[BIGMERVE]

Someone could just make a script that spends thousands of tiny transactions back and forth to two wallets they own, therefore causing inflation to rise too quickly.

[sevenseals]

Someone could just make a script that spends thousands of tiny transactions back and forth to two wallets they own, therefore causing inflation to rise too quickly.

All addresses of one person have to be registered or linked to each other. Or: one person will not have more than one address. And ... it has to be ensured that the same coin must not come back to the same wallet within a definite timeframe.

[sevenseals]

on the subject of inflation:

In my opinion it is not. Because the more the coin will be used the more the coin will also be needed.

And additionally: When all the coins created so far were spent one time, the money supply will increase by only 1%. (once again: only when ALL coins were spent ONE time.)

I'd rather say that 1% per transaction is too less.

[Sukrim]

The thing is that it has to be ensured that one person will have only one address, or that all addresses of one person are linked together.

If this can be achieved somehow, it would be great to have.

The big issue is indeed: How?

Some ideas from the top of my head:
Biometrics to provide a hash (e.g. finger print, retina scan)
3rd party trust/verification, like government IDs/certificates
DNA hash?!

All of the things I can come up with though are cheatable more or less easily or require a lot of trust.

Another approach would be crowdsourcing: To let someone open an account, require existing account holders to verify this person. Then only accept payments from verified persons or within a small degree of that.
Still if I just look at the amount of fake facebook profiles that people get friends with, I don't think that verification of existence should be down to a circle of friends...

Bitcoin solved this distribution problem with Proof of Work ("If you exist, you can run a program that grants you BTC out of nowhere"). Ripple circumvents it by using mostly IOUs (they require trust anyways) and used the central issuer approach for their actual currency XRP. there is also the possibility of mixing in Proof of Stake ("If you own some coins, you get more than somebody who has none so far"), I think PPC operates like this where you can mine coins if you have 0 so far, but also current coin owners get more coins automatically.

[sevenseals]

Some ideas from the top of my head:
Biometrics to provide a hash (e.g. finger print, retina scan)
3rd party trust/verification, like government IDs/certificates
DNA hash?!

At Ripple you also have only one address. Perhaps to go that way.
Or an otherone have an other idea.

Yes PPC operates like this but you also get additional coins when your coins are in the wallet the whole time.

[Sukrim]

At Ripple you also have only one address.

I have more than 1 Ripple account... I cannot open millions though, as there is a proof of ownership mechanism at works to be able to use an account (you need to have at least 50 XRP in an account afaik)

[loudog40]

Interesting concept and perhaps it will become viable with some more thinking.  At this stage though I think there is still a chink in the armor.  As everyone has already agreed there is a necessity to limit to one address per person.  This is difficult enough, but there is still an issue even with this guard in place - just because you can't spend to yourself doesn't mean you can't spend back-and-forth with your friends.

Your concept kinda sounds like demurrage flipped on it's head but I wonder if this really yields any additional benefits.  Even if you could solve the aforementioned problems, would this idea introduce value above and beyond something like Freicoin?  Demurrage may feel icky because money is slowly 'lost', but for most people the indirect economic effects will easily surpass this cost and it doesn't require difficult to enforce constraints on it's users.