Why is nobody contesting the obvious...?
Endless 2% inflation? And who gets that wealth? Developers? For the "public good" of course.
"- All coins are created in genesis block." (Effectively a 100% premine.)
"- The coins will be distributed in a fair, open process." (Fair and open according to who?)
Did we easily forget Google's "Don't be evil".
It took less then a decade for any semblance of that motto to die.
A coin should not rely on us to trust anyone. The algorithm should ensure that.
If we are trusting these guys to "fairly distribute" the coins, and fairly allocate the 2% inflation (robbery) of those holding the coins, then how is this any different then trusting a central banker?
Skycoin as it stands is violating very basic tenants fundamental to what cryto currencies are all about.
Skycoin guys... go back to the drawing board. Get rid of the endless inflation. Get rid of what amounts to a 100% premine. Get rid of any need for us to trust you. Then you might have something.
>A coin should not rely on us to trust anyone. The algorithm should ensure that.
Skycoin is designed to survive if the original development team is eliminated. This is a darknet coin.
The developers do not control who gets coins created from inflation. Skycoin holders vote to determine the distribution. Community voting and coin distribution is part of a mechanism to ensure financial incentives for developers to improve and maintain Skycoin.
Many previous coins have died because the volunteer developers of the coin disappeared and no new developer had an incentive to work on the coin. For a coin to survive for a century, it has to ensure survivability and robustness under unknown future conditions. The community needs to be able to mobilize financial resources to ensure continuity of the blockchain.
With the inflation/voting mechanism, if the community does not like the current development team, they can hire a new development team. Without inflation/voting, the community is at the mercy of whichever developers volunteer to work on the coin.
Voting/Inflation allows the community to decide the direction and priorities of Skycoin, instead allowing the current developers to dictate that direction. For instance, currently the Bitcoin is completely controlled by the development organization. Bitcoin holders do not have any meaningful input into the direction of Bitcoin. Users can sell their Bitcoins for other coins (exit) or theoretically decide to fork the block chain if there is a major disagreement (wont happen) but Bitcoin stakeholders do not meaningfully participate in the governance of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin's reliance upon the development organization and reliance upon miners are the only two things that could destroy Bitcoin in the long term. These are known threats and future coins should reduce their susceptibility to these threats as far as is possible.
>The coins will be distributed in a fair, open process." (Fair and open according to who?)
Less than 1% of Ripples are owned by the ripple user base. The majority of the free float of Ripple was sold to investors, in secret, in backdoor deals at below market price. Skycoin will not do this. The users will own the majority of the issued Skycoin and no one will receive secret backdoor deals.
>If we are trusting these guys to "fairly distribute" the coins, and fairly allocate the 2% inflation (robbery) of those holding the coins, then how is this any different then trusting a central banker?
Skycoin inflation is distributed through a digital direct democracy. Skycoin stake holders vote and determine who receives the coins and for what. Inflation will be 0% if the majority vetos every project. The inflation is capped at 2% to prevent abuse by large stakeholders.
The voting and distribution process will be centralized at the start, for technical reasons. It will switch over to an autonomous decentralized process as soon as possible. The first project RFCs that will be funded through voting, should be decentralization of the voting and distribution process itself.
