Creating a guaranteed minimum income through crypto-coins

[TCraver]

I've posted on this in another forum:  < https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=429437.0 >  but this one may be better suited to getting discussion going.

There is a concept of guaranteeing every person a free minimum income.  
- Advantages include countering extreme poverty and providing buffering against deep recessions/depressions.
- One justification is that a capitalist economy takes some value from all, by imposing externalities on all (pollution, loss of natural beauty, loss of access to formerly unowned land, etc).
- Probably the largest objection to guaranteed income is that it has always appeared that it would have to be created by a government, which would take from some in order to give to all.

My thesis here is that it might be possible to create a crypto-currency that provides a totally voluntary, non-governmental, world-wide guaranteed minimum income.
See the link above for some discussion of some technical attributes of such a coin system.

The biggest issue appears to be how to prevent fraud by double dipping - creating multiple fake accounts to generate multiple streams of free coins.
One approach would be to somehow tie participant accounts to their real identity.  Again, I've proposed a few ways that might be done in that other post.

Can anyone see any way to make this work, without tying coin creation to true identity?  Maybe some sort of "proof of work by a real human"?

[cr1776]

Maybe some sort of "proof of work by a real human"?

A job?

 

[Johnny Bitcoinseed]

Problem with "free" income is that you are going to spend your coins to get stuff for "Free".  However, that stuff wasn't free for the person who grew it, created it, or what have you - they had to work for it.

So what you've done, essentially, is enslaved the producers for that period of time they made that item or service.

What your saying is along the lines of: lets end poverty by simply giving everyone on earth who is poor One Million Dollars!  Then the producers can work their butts off for that money that was given to the poor people.  Couldn't be simpler, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?!!!!

The real way to get un-poor is to increase your value to the world - skill sets, working harder, etc.  The only way known to man that works.  NOT hoping someone gives you money for nothing.

[meanig]

Problem with "free" income is that you are going to spend your coins to get stuff for "Free".  However, that stuff wasn't free for the person who grew it, created it, or what have you - they had to work for it.

So what you've done, essentially, is enslaved the producers for that period of time they made that item or service.

What your saying is along the lines of: lets end poverty by simply giving everyone on earth who is poor One Million Dollars!  Then the producers can work their butts off for that money that was given to the poor people.  Couldn't be simpler, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?!!!!

The real way to get un-poor is to increase your value to the world - skill sets, working harder, etc.  The only way known to man that works.  NOT hoping someone gives you money for nothing.

What if the producers are robots

[TCraver]

So what you've done, essentially, is enslaved the producers for that period of time they made that item or service.

Accepting this altcoin would be just as voluntary as accepting Bitcoin.  So no, there's no enslaving going on.

Even if implemented, you could refrain from accepting free coins or payment in these coins, so there is no need to feel threatened by it.

[giantdragon]

Accepting this altcoin would be just as voluntary as accepting Bitcoin.  So no, there's no enslaving going on.

Even if implemented, you could refrain from accepting free coins or payment in these coins, so there is no need to feel threatened by it.

Nobody of the capital owners will accept these altcoins IMHO.

The enslaved are the people that are forced to work in order to enrich the people that don't work.

Partially true - if accepting altcoins will be compulsory, this idea have no difference with taxation.
But assuming that main production factor will be the capital (robots) and not the labor, no people will be force to work, just bourgeoisie forced to share production means.

[TCraver]

Partially true - if accepting altcoins will be compulsory, this idea have no difference with taxation.
But assuming that main production factor will be the capital (robots) and not the labor, no people will be force to work, just bourgeoisie forced to share production means.

Perhaps I need to clarify.  No one would be forced to accept the altcoins.   Just as with Bitcoin, choosing to get involved is totally voluntary.  You could also trade in the coins without any obligation to accept them in the future.

But if and so long as one does choose to generate the free coins, one would be accepting an obligation to accept payments in the coin - at least up to the amount of free coins you spend.  (And this is not a hard fixed rule, it's just my current thought on how it would work.)

Instead of thinking of it as "free" coins, it's better to think of it on the same model as a government (or a bank like the Fed) printing coins and putting an equal debt on their ledger.  The entity - government, bank, or individual, "loans" the coins into existence.   Yes, it sounds like fairy magic, but that's pretty much how US dollars work...

BTW: It's awkward to keep referring to this as "the altcoin".  Suggestions for a good name?

[TCraver]

Nobody of the capital owners will accept these altcoins IMHO.

(It's too awkward to keep calling this 'the altcoin'.  I'm going to call it Mincoin until someone comes up with a better name.  Refers to both 'minting your own coins" and "minimum income".)

The main factor Mincoin has going against it, is a rapid devaluation rate.  That makes it very poor as a long term store of value.

But merchants do accept 'worthless scraps of paper' that commonly lose 2% to 10% of their value in a year.  And they accept credit cards that charge them transaction costs as high as 3%.   Those are just costs of doing business, factored into their prices. 

So it doesn't seem too incredible that they might eventually do the same with Mincoin.  As long as they can turn over their mincoins in less than a week, a 2%/week devaluation could be considered a cost of doing business. 

One other thought I had:  if Mincoin requires a public account into which coins are created (to combat fraud), one could exclude about a month's worth of coins kept in that account from decay.   So if one can generate 3 mincoin a day, 100 mincoin in the identity-tied creation account wouldn't decay.  That allows one a month to spend the free coins, and merchants can hold a small amount of "cash" on hand without loss.  The increase in the total money supply would only be about 10% from implementing this.

Clearly, as with Bitcoin, there would have to be a 'bootstrap' process for Mincoin. Mincoin has a number of strong factors going for it in that regard:

People like to get "free" stuff.  In this respect, Mincoin might prove much more attractive than Bitcoin, where by design only a few get free coins.   Mincoin embraces one of the common misconceptions about Bitcoin - Mincoin really WOULD give people free coins.

If the Mincoin concept gains wide understanding, a large fraction of the population might see it as a worthy cause and deliberately seek to spread it and give it real world value, in order to 'support the cause'.  Popular authors might write stories that can only be purchased with mincoin; school kids might organize "Walks for Mincoin" to raise awareness and get people to sign up.  Charities might get donors to donate $1 for each person signing up to accept the free Mincoin (and payment in Mincoin).

[Apraksin]

Reserved.

[Ix]

Maybe some sort of "proof of work by a real human"?

A job?

 

*rimshot*

[Erdogan]

I don't think this can be solved with an altcoin.

Otherwise, if it is felt necessary at all to protect those who are not able to earn enough for their own sustenance, this is a really good argument for a minimum tax principle.

Supported by taxes, give the minimum income to everyone, rich and poor, with no conditions. This will make sure that support never stops anyone from working for betterment of their own situation.

Minimum wages, social support, unemployment support, and so on, can be seen as support on the condition that the receiver stops producing. This reduces the total wealth, including what is needed to support the poor. It is a plan for the society to implode.

[TCraver]

I don't think this can be solved with an altcoin.
...
Minimum wages, social support, unemployment support, and so on, can be seen as support on the condition that the receiver stops producing. This reduces the total wealth, including what is needed to support the poor. It is a plan for the society to implode.

I mostly agree with you regarding minimum income, though I also agree with those who would not want to be compelled to support it.  I mainly find that those who oppose it either fear that they will be forced to pay to support others and thereby would be worse off, or else fear that by giving everyone a minimum income the poorest would be deprived of income that could have been concentrated on them alone:  both fears are based on zero-sum thinking.

Unfortunately, the fact that it hasn't happened by now is a pretty good indicator that it isn't likely to be accepted and implemented any time soon, and even if it were, the poorest in the world would almost certainly not be covered by it. 

However, I would invite you to explain why you think it cannot be solved with an altcoin, as I do think that might be possible.   If you see issues that I have not noticed, I would appreciate your explanation.   See my previous posts for some of the issues I've tried to address.

[Kaiji]

You will need to find a way to create a fool proof identity linking each person to one account.

Instead of just giving the coins away how about some sort of crowd-investing similar to crowd funding where numerous people purchase a company, mine etc. together. There has to be real life value for it to become a viable source of income. Otherwise what you are suggesting is some hi tech form of communism which is unnatural to a natural market.

If you can produce some way to eliminate embezzlement and fraud using a crypto you could scale down your idea and give it to some third world country. I know Africa is notorius for supervisors stealing entire monthly payrolls from employees in the private and government sectors.

[Erdogan]

I don't think this can be solved with an altcoin.
...
Minimum wages, social support, unemployment support, and so on, can be seen as support on the condition that the receiver stops producing. This reduces the total wealth, including what is needed to support the poor. It is a plan for the society to implode.

I mostly agree with you regarding minimum income, though I also agree with those who would not want to be compelled to support it.  I mainly find that those who oppose it either fear that they will be forced to pay to support others and thereby would be worse off, or else fear that by giving everyone a minimum income the poorest would be deprived of income that could have been concentrated on them alone:  both fears are based on zero-sum thinking.

Unfortunately, the fact that it hasn't happened by now is a pretty good indicator that it isn't likely to be accepted and implemented any time soon, and even if it were, the poorest in the world would almost certainly not be covered by it. 

However, I would invite you to explain why you think it cannot be solved with an altcoin, as I do think that might be possible.   If you see issues that I have not noticed, I would appreciate your explanation.   See my previous posts for some of the issues I've tried to address.

Supported by taxes, give the minimum income to everyone, rich and poor, with no conditions. This will make sure that support never stops anyone from working for betterment of their own situation.

It seems your original suggestion is to disperse a minimum wage to everybody from voluntary gifts.
This is the same as voluntary supporting an organization that gives to the poor. Not exactly the same, as everybody would not get the minimum. It could be enough.

I just don't see how creating an altcoin for it solves anything.

[DieJohnny]

Can anyone see any way to make this work, without tying coin creation to true identity?  Maybe some sort of "proof of work by a real human"?

I don't understand why tying coin creation to true identity is a problem if you are trying to provide free income to individuals. There is no reason that you could not provide basically a faucet of Bitcoin to registered addresses that in fact are tied to a person.

You could even make the private keys public but add another usage validation for public coins, lets say a physical key that you get from the government.

I actually had the crazy idea that Satoshi should do something like this with his million of bitcoins. He could both create incredible hype around Bitcoin by starting to give them away in a methodical fashion and with some implementation that benefited those that truly need it.

For sustainability, Bitcoin could implement a VAT tax to every txn that follows some complex progressive algorith. The VAT tax would replenish a government address which then trickles payments to registered bitcoin addresses.

Anonymity while a feature of Bitcoin is meaningless drivel when solving the worlds problems.

[DieJohnny]

Problem with "free" income is that you are going to spend your coins to get stuff for "Free".  However, that stuff wasn't free for the person who grew it, created it, or what have you - they had to work for it.

So what you've done, essentially, is enslaved the producers for that period of time they made that item or service.

What your saying is along the lines of: lets end poverty by simply giving everyone on earth who is poor One Million Dollars!  Then the producers can work their butts off for that money that was given to the poor people.  Couldn't be simpler, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?!!!!

The real way to get un-poor is to increase your value to the world - skill sets, working harder, etc.  The only way known to man that works.  NOT hoping someone gives you money for nothing.

Alaska pays a dividend every year, or used to, to every resident of the state. It is justified because each resident sacrifices a little to accommodate the business of extracting and moving oil into the market.

I completely agree with the suggestion from the OP that simply being a citizen in the USA we are all in small ways paying for the success of businesses with no compensation. I pay a little more to phone companies because they have price controls that are strong enough extract more money from me than is fair (near monopolies), but not strong enough for the govt to take action (true monopolies). I pay more for cable because cable won't break channels into only small chunks I can buy and I have no other choice. I pay more for gasoline because of panic and price manipulation. I refer friends to see movies and I never get a commission. And the story goes on and on.

If you had a truly transparent VAT tax that did not destroy commerce, and was fairly distributed, I think it is a great idea. A distributed currency is perfectly suited to address this problem because you would can programmatically remove corruption in the collection and distribution.

And it is just software, you don't need a new coin, Bitcoin could do it.

[diedicar]

human proof of work coins have to be implemented. Only human work is inherently decentralized. Mining in itself is a waste, if mining becomes centralized (as it is now) this waste can possibly miss his only reason of beeing.

I'll reply briefly to the unacceptable point of views showd by certain contributors to the thread: if someone thinks that any distribution of value should be in accordance of work time (so the producer is "enslaved" by the time he produces some more than what he gets) he is  ignoring the fact that hourly income is not equal for all, and in NO WAY you can check the productivity of a single worker in one firm, that could account for this disparity.

People does not work simply because land and means of production have been privatized, which can happen only with violence (as it did), and because it is not possible to choose a medium of exchange not backed by violence as fiat currencies are, without incurring in this violence. 

[Sutters Mill]

The biggest issue appears to be how to prevent fraud by double dipping

Hehe 

[Erdogan]

The biggest issue appears to be how to prevent fraud by double dipping

Hehe 

It's unhygienic!

[TCraver]

Instead of just giving the coins away how about some sort of crowd-investing similar to crowd funding where numerous people purchase a company, mine etc. together. There has to be real life value for it to become a viable source of income. Otherwise what you are suggesting is some hi tech form of communism which is unnatural to a natural market.

If you can produce some way to eliminate embezzlement and fraud using a crypto you could scale down your idea and give it to some third world country. I know Africa is notorius for supervisors stealing entire monthly payrolls from employees in the private and government sectors.

Kaiji - your suggestion of considering a crowd-funding/investing model could be a fruitful way to consider Mincoin.  (Still hoping for suggestions for a better name!)

Instead of just making coins for myself, to get free stuff, I can give away the right for others to call upon my efforts in support of efforts I consider worthy.  I would accept that there will be those who are less fortunate, who might create Mincoin and give them to others in exchange for things they need.   

Operationally, instead of accumulating mincoin in a public account, that might mean generating them into the account of someone else, while accepting an equally time-decaying debt into one's own account.

Worth thinking about...