Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?

[AnonyMint]

On these 2 points  at least I agree with AnonyMint.  Will they want to squash it? Will they be able to?  Will they find a way to use it or live with it?  Nobody has that answer.

Government pays salary to its employees. They can run from the currency only if they leave civil service. If they do leave, there is no public staff, then there is no government, no state, right? The confidence being referred to is not confidence in the money as such but rather it is confidence in the state and its government...

They can run by actually running upon receiving salary to the bread store at the corner to dump their currency before it depreciates. I had a photo of them doing exactly that in Wiemar Germany.

[AnonyMint]

Facing of widespread dumping of the currency, hyperinflates to continue to fund its mercenaries, ahem I mean police, tax collectors, and other "useful" bureaucrats. It is a futile attempt to maintain control over the loss of confidence.

Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...

Hyperinflation is never caused by inflation. It is caused by the government being wrecked by revolution and/or Communism and the people losing all confidence in the government.

In Zimbabwe, the blacks revolted against the white land owners. That caused a crisis of confidence.

Weimar Germany didn't plunge into anarchy, neither did Yugoslavia nor Zimbabwe for the same reasons...

  You must have a different definition of anarchy than I do.

[AnonyMint]

Not if buying the Bitcoin requires impoverishing oneself and society into hyperinflation.

You can't have this type of radical transfer of wealth to speculators. Society will never allow it.

[snip]

How do you supposee that society will not allow that?

Wow you really doubt the power of the government. I guess you forget who has the bigger guns.

You are not anonymous in Bitcoin. They can attack with the tax agencies without bringing out the big guns. The big guns are the last resort. As the final resort, nuclear winter and the underground shelters the elite have built.

Absolutely no way the elite will hand over the power over the creation of money. They will co-opt it peacefully or by as much violence as it requires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

[rpietila]

It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color

[deisik]

They can run by actually running upon receiving salary to the bread store at the corner to dump their currency before it depreciates. I had a photo of them doing exactly that in Wiemar Germany.

Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

Internet is full of such photos, even with people using packs of banknotes as fuel...

[npl]

you lot are veering off topic and not acknowledging the brilliance of my response to the OP's question  

The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

My proposal does not negate miner profit, it calls to reconfigure the way mining inputs are expended.

[deisik]

Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...

Hyperinflation is never caused by inflation. It is caused by the government being wrecked by revolution and/or Communism and the people losing all confidence in the government.

In Zimbabwe, the blacks revolted against the white land owners. That caused a crisis of confidence.

So you recognize that it is not confidence in money (or lack thereof) which makes the government go bankrupt, but rather the loss of confidence in the government itself which makes its currency irrelevant, right?

[AnonyMint]

Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...

Hyperinflation is never caused by inflation. It is caused by the government being wrecked by revolution and/or Communism and the people losing all confidence in the government.

In Zimbabwe, the blacks revolted against the white land owners. That caused a crisis of confidence.

So you recognize that it is not confidence in money (or lack thereof) which makes the government go bankrupt, but rather the loss of confidence in the government itself which makes its currency irrelevant, right?

Agreed, but isn't that distinction as useful as splitting hairs on a frog's back.

[AnonyMint]

They can run by actually running upon receiving salary to the bread store at the corner to dump their currency before it depreciates. I had a photo of them doing exactly that in Wiemar Germany.

Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

They may have no other job offer.

[AnonyMint]

It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color

You really think I give a flying f$ck about reputation?

Everything is technology now. Reputation can be fabricated out of thin air (or purchased).

I would rather be correct on the technological outcome than be popular. The former means I will be able to buy (as slaves) all of the people who ignored me if I wanted to. You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

I saw it hours ago:

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.

Typically, people ignore you not for sticking your neck out, but for being a complete douchebag about it. Also, it's rather difficult to get 62 people to think you are so not worth their time, that they actually take the time to click the "Ignore" button instead of simply scrolling past your post.

Let's remember who was the first douchebag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525396#msg3525396

My apologies, I did not realize that you were a crazy person. Cary on.

Butt hurt Bitards press ignore when they want to continue their Ponzi delusion.

That proves what? That they are butt hurt. Nothing more.

[RodeoX]

The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

1. Distribution of coin rewards is halving every 4 years, thus diminishing towards 0. Half of all coins went to adopters in first 4 years.

2. ASICs means PC owners can't leverage their existing assets. Thus not a widely distribution coin.

3. PC mining need not be a free lunch, could also secure the network.

1. True. Those who act first are more greatly rewarded. Welcome to economics.
In the future fees will replace block rewards. They will also go to those who work hardest and smartest.   

2. True. They must buy ASICs. Just as the last generation of miners needed to buy GPU's and before that, powerful CPUs. Miners must spend money on equipment and electricity. You can't pan for gold anymore either, now you must invest in expensive equipment.

3. PC mining was fine for protecting a market cap in the millions, but it is far to weak for the billions we are at now. This scaling acts against the profitability of a 51% attack.

Bitcoin is market driven. It rewards hard work, capital investment and greed, but nothing else.

P.S. I'm glad you are a contrarian. We need more than one uni-brain here. 

[Adrian-x]

A While ago this idea was nicknamed GaussCoin


 It has some merits in that that the velocity of distribution is consistent with the  market distribution mechanism and consistent with the laws of diffusion of innovation, once about 2/3ds of total adoption is complete you will have relative adoption and relative distribution.

Bitcoins value at the moment is not a reflection of the economy size but a reflection of the benefits of storing fungible and transferable wealth in a finite medium that is secured and distributed on a P2P network, that demand will naturally be subject to human preference and is reflected as volatility.

One improvement I could think to achieve the goal would be to adjust but build in the rate of supply to reflect (a Logistic Function) and not the current step function to a normal distribution model, and have new coins mined on a Gaussian Curve to better correlate supply with growth, for added supply and greater and faster user adoption all the while more accurately meeting demand.

[deisik]

So you recognize that it is not confidence in money (or lack thereof) which makes the government go bankrupt, but rather the loss of confidence in the government itself which makes its currency irrelevant, right?

Agreed, but isn't that distinction as useful as splitting hairs on a frog's back.

It just proves that the problem of "a debt based fiat system" is not a problem within and of itself. And the most important inference from this is that you can't call such a currency system a Ponzi scheme, for otherwise it would imply denying confidence in the government as being a real asset behind the currency. Yes, it could burst but it still would be supported at some level by something (i.e. confidence) which is not speculative in nature (see the real estate bubble example)...

[deisik]

Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

They may have no other job offer.

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system (at least some of them), plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely had lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

[CoinCube]

It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color

AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

[Adrian-x]

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system, plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

and we are not there yet?

Personally the OP has a legitimate concern; honestly I think Bitcoin is doing a better (more equitable) job of disseminating currency than fiat from our Government / Bank Partnerships.

At the end of the day I like the fact that huge amounts of Bitcoin sit in cold storage, the first fork to deviate will encore high inflation, as old coins flood the new fork while still remaining in cold storage with potentual in the stronger fork.  (ie - old coins could spend in both forks)

[deisik]

Nope. In a housing bubble new buyers are required to continually enter the market and buy new homes lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. New debt being created continually makes it a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse, but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

I had taken this position recently, but I said "yes" upthread because I was remembering the notion (is it true?) that all fiat currencies have returned to their intrinsic value of 0 on long enough time scales.

To say that all fiat currencies have returned to their intrinsic value of 0 on long enough time distance is equal to saying that all states have to die sooner or later. Historically, this is a well-grounded stance (even without making provisions for fiat currencies), but you should be very careful about the cause and effect relationship and the sequence of events...

[Adrian-x]

You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

No but that is great, for me and nice to know God has a place for those "not wise" dogmatic Keynesians

[deisik]

AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

[deisik]

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system, plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

and we are not there yet?

Unemployment figures tell us that we haven't yet even started... Actually, we were talking about Weimar Germany and its hyperinflation of 1922-1923