Viability of centrally issued P2P Cryptocurrency - best answers tipped!

[GCInc.]

Although the thread failed to concretely address most issues we would have hoped, some valid ideas were presented. Rogue5pawn, you have been paid 0.012 BTC for your contribution. Thanks! (You may still reply  )

[greenlion]

A centrally-issued currency does not need to be either P2P- or cyptography-based, because you've already assumed the counterparty risk of central control that P2P or crypto cannot solve.

The US dollar already exists in this form when it comes to open market operations at the Fed.

[GCInc.]

A centrally-issued currency does not need to be either P2P- or cyptography-based, because you've already assumed the counterparty risk of central control that P2P or crypto cannot solve.

Does not need to be? Well, p2p cryptocurrencies are just about the best form of digital cash available. Centralized or not, why make it inferior?

The comparison to some aspects of USD is valid, but on many fronts USD stinks and a quota bound cryptocurrency would make away these, like most of the uncontrolled money supply problems plaguing fiat since the beginning of their times.

[Rogue5pawn]

Although the thread failed to concretely address most issues we would have hoped, some valid ideas were presented. Rogue5pawn, you have been paid 0.012 BTC for your contribution. Thanks! (You may still reply  )

I was wondering where that random Recieve came from. Thank you.

Am still considering things. It are what I do. 

[Mike Christ]

A centrally-issued currency does not need to be either P2P- or cyptography-based, because you've already assumed the counterparty risk of central control that P2P or crypto cannot solve.

Does not need to be? Well, p2p cryptocurrencies are just about the best form of digital cash available. Centralized or not, why make it inferior?

I agree; why make it inferior with centralization?

[GCInc.]

I agree; why make it inferior with centralization?

Central issuance reasoning was addressed in the opening post:

there are a handful (ideally <10) of organizations that in co-operation control the release of currency to public, arrange basic income / new currency adoption rewards for citizens, grant bounties for companies to motorize development of both technical and systemic reforms etc. These organizations not only regulate the release of tokens to benevolently oversee the adoption process, they also require mass funds converted to old world currency to continuously to keep the ball rolling.

- there are supposedly hundreds of second level operators who receive grants with limited release rights: To promote, facilitate adoption and development

- mining is supposed to remain tightly distributed: To combat disproportional accumulation of coins to mining conglomerates or early adopters

There you have it. All of these require an uncertain amount of premine (=central issuance) to work more effectively than a system born "fairly distributed" from square one.

[GCInc.]

Who will give those funds and why would they give them ?

Nobody gives them. Funds would be received through purchases from third party operators who provide services and packages for their audience and public - services created by the governing organizations and second level operators, to which access is allowed against purchase of the currency.

It has just come to our attention that there are at least three major cryptocurrency endeavors currently going on utilizing the central issuance model:

- eMunie
- Mastercoin
- Nxt

It seems all of these are relatively large projects in already advanced phase. We are happy to notice the support these models receive, despite the neglect from the traditional ponzicoin crowd. It validates our proposition that the central issuance model is viable to operate a centrally issued cryptocurrency on a national level.

[greenlion]

I agree; why make it inferior with centralization?

Central issuance reasoning was addressed in the opening post:

there are a handful (ideally <10) of organizations that in co-operation control the release of currency to public, arrange basic income / new currency adoption rewards for citizens, grant bounties for companies to motorize development of both technical and systemic reforms etc. These organizations not only regulate the release of tokens to benevolently oversee the adoption process, they also require mass funds converted to old world currency to continuously to keep the ball rolling.

- there are supposedly hundreds of second level operators who receive grants with limited release rights: To promote, facilitate adoption and development

- mining is supposed to remain tightly distributed: To combat disproportional accumulation of coins to mining conglomerates or early adopters

There you have it. All of these require an uncertain amount of premine (=central issuance) to work more effectively than a system born "fairly distributed" from square one.

Every single one of these premises is completely absurd.

[GCInc.]

Every single one of these premises is completely absurd.

Most of them are now adopted, as well as a large portion of the other ideas I presented - in a form or another by the 2nd Generation centrally distributed cryptocurrencies such as NXT, eMunie and Mastercoin.

I was early and I was right.

[spartacusrex]

CryptoCurrencies have LOTS of nice features.

If you wanted to use one for your country, there would be lots of benefits.

Let's say, in this thought experiment, that a small country that used it's own currency, wanted to use this wonderful technology. Why? Well..

1) You can send money at any time. To anyone. Anywhere. Almost instantly.

2) No-one can fake a transaction from you to a third party. The cryptography makes sure of that. No counterfeiting.

3) No-one can charge back a transaction. Once the miners have accepted it.

4) In the case of a Brain Wallet, unless someone 'beats' it out of you (let's hope THAT never happens..), your coins can't be stolen. Very secure. And your private key, in the normal case, can be encrypted also.

5) The Open Ledger would make accounting easy, and the possibility of financial fraud hard. If not impossible, for both the citizens of the state AND the Government. They would be forced to comply, or at least be discovered in their treachery.

As the Government of the country your role would be simple. The Government would pre-mine ALL the initial coins. Say 1 Billion coins - or a number that would be large enough for the economy to be sustainable.

Then you would go to the country's exchange, and put a MASSIVE sell order for 1 Billion(All the coins) coins at 1 unit of your currency. Any citizen could use the exchange.

Then you would let the currency, go. You'd also have something no other coin has managed. Price Stability.

After a while there would be none of the original 'paper' currency left. Everyone would be using the crypto coin.

The mining would be left to the Market, with fees being the only incentive. Yes - the government would also do this, and probably in a very large way. To make sure that the 51% attack was never going to happen. You could even regulate who was allowed to mine. Maybe some kind of license. They may not even need to tax it's citizens if the fees proved enough?

No - this would not be a decentralised unregulated crypto coin, like the 'Bitcoin' we all love. But it would be JUST AS GOOD as whatever currency the Government was peddling before, and in fact, quite obviously, better.
 
Yes you would have to trust your government. But you all ready have to do that.

[Ibian]

Okay, having read the first four six (im drunk) posts...

Centralization means single point of failure.  Why would I want a less robust cryptocurrency?

/thread. it really should have ended there. Especially with the attitude the op has.