Creating a guaranteed minimum income through crypto-coins

[TCraver]

"You can't be in two places at the same time."

Suppose TheCoin was distributed at a specific time of day (say local solar noon for every degree of longitude).  Each potential recipient would need to undertake a few actions that take a few minutes, that they could not in general physically do with two or more devices.

For example, they might have one minute in which to log in, after which they would receive a series of instructions directing them to a random series of positions reachable by walking for a few minutes total (by which time the password entry and start walking window would be long over).  Sometimes they would be directed to take a picture in a specified direction.  Sometimes they would meet someone else and exchange random codes to be entered into their devices.  Etc.

Some would attempt to get around this by hiring poorer people to do it for them (similar to gold farming).  One way to reduce the value of this, would be to only pay out TheCoin randomly, averaging once a week.  Anyone who wants to hire others to do this would have to hire them for every day of the week, even though they only get TheCoin once a week on average.  (Longer term, the problem is mostly solved as networked mobile devices get common and cheap enough for all - why do it for someone else? )

In addition to the above control on distribution, TheCoin system might require some small amount of work to earn the distribution, such as running a light weight server, or doing mechanical turk things such as examining photos to verify they were taken where claimed, or show a person matching a photo of the person who claimed to be there at a specific time.

[1715064297]

1715064297

[brush242]

Keep in mind that all you're doing with all these schemes is driving up the cost of using this system.

Like I said, the easiest and more accurate would be the Oddballcoin Minimum Income Verification Association. The OMIVA would just verify people and issue them some part of a crypto system.

[TCraver]

Keep in mind that all you're doing with all these schemes is driving up the cost of using this system.

Like I said, the easiest and more accurate would be the Oddballcoin Minimum Income Verification Association. The OMIVA would just verify people and issue them some part of a crypto system.

I'm sorry, I don't see where you have said any such thing.  Those terms don't show up except in your latest post when I search all Bitcoin Forum, nor in the obvious Google searches.   

Are you just making up this "OMIVA" term to describe your previous unsupported claim that this is actually an easy problem to solve?  Or is this something real that I just can't seem to find?

Describe a real proposal, or provide a link to it, so we can evaluate it.   I'll be happy if it does turn out to have a simple solution, but so far you've only made a vague claim that it is possible, not any specifics of how it would be done.

In the meantime, it appears that you agree that my proposal could work adequately.  I don't see how it increases cost at all (and relative to what?), though it does mean that the effort required is more than zero - maybe half an hour a week to collect TheCoin, plus some other light activity (TBD) to earn the coins.   

[brush242]

Keep in mind that all you're doing with all these schemes is driving up the cost of using this system.

Like I said, the easiest and more accurate would be the Oddballcoin Minimum Income Verification Association. The OMIVA would just verify people and issue them some part of a crypto system.

I'm sorry, I don't see where you have said any such thing.  Those terms don't show up except in your latest post when I search all Bitcoin Forum, nor in the obvious Google searches.   

Are you just making up this "OMIVA" term to describe your previous unsupported claim that this is actually an easy problem to solve?  Or is this something real that I just can't seem to find?

No. (Well, yes, I made it up as an example). Look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=430364.msg5389223;topicseen#msg5389223 But very briefly: You set up a non-profit association whose only purpose is to validate that people are who they say they are. 100% voluntary.

Describe a real proposal, or provide a link to it, so we can evaluate it.   I'll be happy if it does turn out to have a simple solution, but so far you've only made a vague claim that it is possible, not any specifics of how it would be done.

No, you either did not read it, or you forgot that you read it. The specifics are simple. I wasn't vague, and I gave you a real-world example.

In the meantime, it appears that you agree that my proposal could work adequately.  I don't see how it increases cost at all (and relative to what?), though it does mean that the effort required is more than zero - maybe half an hour a week to collect TheCoin, plus some other light activity (TBD) to earn the coins.

It increases costs because people a) have to do something, and b) that something seems like a pain. Plus opportunity costs.

[TCraver]

briefly: You set up a non-profit association whose only purpose is to validate that people are who they say they are. 100% voluntary.
...
I gave you a real-world example.

The connection of OMIVA to the proposal you sketched previously was not at all clear.  

I'll go into a lot of detail below to explain why what you have proposed is not simple, and far more expensive and susceptible to corruption than what I just proposed.  

But in essence, it sounds like you propose a "traditional" non-profit business version of the network organization I previously proposed trying to implement via network-distributed tasks.  I set that aside as possible but more complex than I would like.  

OMIVA would find the identification task just as complex, but would also be slower to get started, more expensive to operate, and less likely to provide sufficient internal cross-checking to prevent corruption, than the network organization I previously suggested.

-----

So your proposed OMIVA model is analogous to Underwriters Laboratory.  

UL is voluntary only in the sense that their customers voluntarily seek their inspection and stamp of approval - it does not provide free services.   It is a trusted brand/mark only because consumers understand that UL's future income rests on maintaining their reputation as a trusted inspector.  

UL has relatively few customers compared to the potential global 'market' for TheCoin distributions - so the size of organization you are proposing is necessarily much larger.   Creating such a global organization from scratch would not be quick or easy, which would be a major limiting factor on spread of TheCoin distributions.  

It would also cost a lot to create and operate.   Who would pay for OMIVA?  That is - what future business might they lose if they became corrupt and started validating false identities in return for a 50% cut?  

If it is the identity-verified coin recipient, and OMIVA is corrupted anyhow, what happens to all the people who had honestly gotten verified by them?  Do we discard their identities and make them to pay for new ID verification?   Even if TheCoin recipients somehow don't have to pay for the service, they might be cut out of the distribution until a replacement validation organization gets around to re-validate them.

What happens if OMIVA is subverted from inside by a short-sighted crook - not necessarily the whole company, just someone with the right access controls - who doesn't care about OMIVA's reputation, but just wants to grab a quick personal fortune and disappear?  What keeps its field agents honest?   High pay perhaps?

Does OMIVA have a monopoly, or would there be multiple ID agencies?  If it is only OMIVA, the disruption of any corruption would be universal and massive.  If there are multiple competitors, the likelihood/frequency of corruption increases even if they are all somehow qualified.  If anyone can start a validation company with no qualification process, you are pretty much guaranteed that crooks will jump into the business.  And if there are multiple agencies, what prevents someone from creating a different fake ID with each?

Which brings us to the question of how OMIVA agents verify personal and unique identity.  

- By residence?  What if someone moves and doesn't tell OMIVA, but goes to a new OMIVA agent in their new town to create a second identity for a double distribution?  What if a group of 4 friends share two addresses under 8 different names to get double identities through two different OMIVA agents? (Lying to landlords and other potential witnesses and spending time in both places to create a convincing facade)?   Does OMIVA check up on people at frequent random intervals (increasing its expenses)?  How can it tell if those 4 friends have other names and another address, if they spend time at both addresses?

- By Government issued ID?  What about places that have none?  There are also those who will produce good fake IDs for a fee.  Also, a big part of TheCoin system is an attempt to end-run around dependence on and limitations of governments.

Etc.  

It increases costs because people a) have to do something, and b) that something seems like a pain. Plus opportunity costs.

Effort is not cost.  As for whether TheCoin is worth the opportunity cost - that would be for each potential TheCoin recipient to decide.  For someone unemployed with zero income, I think I know the answer.

[brush242]

The connection of OMIVA to the proposal you sketched previously was not at all clear.

Not clear to you, maybe.

So your proposed OMIVA model is analogous to Underwriters Laboratory.

UL is voluntary only in the sense that their customers voluntarily seek their inspection and stamp of approval - it does not provide free services. It is a trusted brand/mark only because consumers understand that UL's future income rests on maintaining their reputation as a trusted inspector.

No. UL is voluntary in the only sense of the word that matters: No one is forced to deal with them. Ever. You voluntarily choose to deal with them, or you choose not to deal with them.

Yes, their brand and reputation is a powerful motivator.

UL has relatively few customers compared to the potential global 'market' for TheCoin distributions - so the size of organization you are proposing is necessarily much larger. Creating such a global organization from scratch would not be quick or easy, which would be a major limiting factor on spread of TheCoin distributions.

Your choice, of course, but no, it won’t limit anything really. If people want the coin, they will come to you willingly. Creating just such organizations is part of your process. That, or putting out specs and accepting bids.

 

It would also cost a lot to create and operate. Who would pay for OMIVA? That is - what future business might they lose if they became corrupt and started validating false identities in return for a 50% cut?

You have no idea what it would cost to operate, but once again, yes there are costs involved in EVERYTHING. In this case, a one-time validation vs. doing a little dance or whatever you suggested every day. Who would pay for it? The people that come to get validated, because the cost (the fee) is greatly outweighed by the benefits (TheCoin).

As far as corruption, that is somewhat of an issue for anything humans create. But, as far as I understand crypto, OMIVA would take a cheek swab, blood, hair root, whatever for DNA. That DNA gets hashed, and along with the OMIVA key generated for each person, the result gets entered into whatever computer distributes the coin. The DNA insures each person can get only one code.

If it is the identity-verified coin recipient, and OMIVA is corrupted anyhow, what happens to all the people who had honestly gotten verified by them? Do we discard their identities and make them to pay for new ID verification? Even if TheCoin recipients somehow don't have to pay for the service, they might be cut out of the distribution until a replacement validation organization gets around to re-validate them.

What happens if OMIVA is subverted from inside by a short-sighted crook - not necessarily the whole company, just someone with the right access controls - who doesn't care about OMIVA's reputation, but just wants to grab a quick personal fortune and disappear? What keeps its field agents honest? High pay perhaps?

Meh. You’re arguing about human-created systems. If it was created by humans, it can likely be subverted by other humans. Billions has been spent on this problem. “What keeps field agents honest?” What keeps cops honest? What keeps bank auditors and accountants honest? What happens if a locksmith company or a bank is subverted from inside by a short-sighted crook - not necessarily the whole company, just someone with the right access controls - who doesn't care about Citibank’s or Huge Locksmith’s reputation, but just wants to grab a quick personal fortune and disappear?

What happens? You pick up the pieces, improve the system, and go from there.

Does OMIVA have a monopoly, or would there be multiple ID agencies? If it is only OMIVA, the disruption of any corruption would be universal and massive. If there are multiple competitors, the likelihood/frequency of corruption increases even if they are all somehow qualified. If anyone can start a validation company with no qualification process, you are pretty much guaranteed that crooks will jump into the business. And if there are multiple agencies, what prevents someone from creating a different fake ID with each?

I think it would be foolish to have a monopoly. Let different comers compete against each other for who can do it the best. Much like the costs for a phone are driven down by Motorola and HTC trying to crush each other.

Which brings us to the question of how OMIVA agents verify personal and unique identity.

- By residence? What if someone moves and doesn't tell OMIVA, but goes to a new OMIVA agent in their new town to create a second identity for a double distribution? What if a group of 4 friends share two addresses under 8 different names to get double identities through two different OMIVA agents? (Lying to landlords and other potential witnesses and spending time in both places to create a convincing facade)? Does OMIVA check up on people at frequent random intervals (increasing its expenses)? How can it tell if those 4 friends have other names and another address, if they spend time at both addresses?

- By Government issued ID? What about places that have none? There are also those who will produce good fake IDs for a fee. Also, a big part of TheCoin system is an attempt to end-run around dependence on and limitations of governments.

By DNA, as I said above. The person who wants TheCoin will come supply it. A DNA hash and a unique code from the authority, hashed together to enter into the whatever system is distributing TheCoin.

Effort is not cost. As for whether TheCoin is worth the opportunity cost - that would be for each potential TheCoin recipient to decide. For someone unemployed with zero income, I think I know the answer.

Here it is. Here is the fundamental flaw that you don’t understand. This is the sticky wicket: Effort IS cost. Let me repeat that because it is a fundamental concept. Effort is cost because it costs you that effort to earn a benefit.

The only thing you have in this world to trade for what you want is effort (read labor). You trade your labor for what you want (most often, money). Every single aspect of everything everyone involved with your project does to set it up has a cost: their labor or effort and the opportunity costs of their choices.

This is why you make the claims you do. Somebody, through their labor, has to create all of the value that you wish to be distributed to others that did not earn it. Whether they earn dollars or BTC or rupees or Litecoin or whatever, it all has to be earned, first.

[simulacrum]

Great discussion, but as brush242 says it would be far too messy to require proof-of-human work every single day.  A non-profit verification foundation makes more sense, and to avoid double-dipping/double-claiming it would need to base verification on a derivative of some unique identifying feature that cannot be changed.  I think there are three broad categories of such identifiers, all of them imperfect:

• Commercial identifiers (phone numbers, accounts on social networks)
• Government identifiers (passport metadata, tax/identity number etc)
• Biometrics (see CheapID for a proposal on this front)

The fourth way is to build a web of trust with crypto, check out OpenUDC project who have gone down that road.

[TCraver]

... it would be far too messy to require proof-of-human work every single day. 

Once a week would be enough, assuming weekly distribution of TheCoin.  Is a 3-5 minute walk once a week really that much to ask?   If someone thinks it is, maybe they don't need TheCoin distributions.   (Daily position checking was just an attempt to make life harder for those who will hire poorer people to collect TheCoin for them.  But on reflection, they'll mostly hire people who don't yet have their own wireless internet device, and it's better that those poor coin farmers get some income, than none.)

A non-profit verification foundation makes more sense, and to avoid double-dipping/double-claiming it would need to base verification on a derivative of some unique identifying feature that cannot be changed. 

Honestly - I've previously considered and rejected a number of the most obvious options, including a real world verification organization. 

So far the unique spatial position test, backed by random real-time interactions with others who are also verifying their positional identity, is so far the simplest and quickest and best.  Yes, it still has flaws.  Not everyone has mobile internet (yet).  Until everyone can afford that, crooks can hire others to walk for them.  Not everyone could physically perform the "walk".  (Perhaps have randomly selected people verify the physical location of the disabled person as part of their own walks.)   

Hmmm - new names for TheCoin:  "Walkers".  Or  "Walkies".   
-----

TheCoin success depends on rapid roll-out.   Building up real world ID verification organizations would take too long - likely a decade to even get coverage of most major cities on Earth, decades to get close to universal coverage, even assuming no political interference.   In areas with thin or corrupt law enforcement, crooks would take over the local organizations.  Desire to maintain a good reputation is simply not a strong enough motivator - as evidenced by the many known instances of corrupt behavior in organizations, plus the larger number that go undetected.
-----

Biometrics sound good - but unique personal attributes are subject to high measurement error/variation.  A person could count on a slightly different digital representation from every capture.  Hash that, and you'll get a different hash every time - allowing multiple identity creation.   Attempts to eliminate those errors reduce the uniqueness of the measurements - creating higher likelihood of more than one person with the same ID code.

Consider DNA sequencing (though it will be too expensive, for several more decades, to be a practical global solution):   Even the best (expensive) sequencing has error rates of 1 in a million bases.  ("Cheap" methods, ~1 in 1000.)  For the ~3 billion bases in the human genome that's at least ~3000 errors per sequencing.   No two sequencings of a person's DNA are likely to ever give the same digital representation. 

One might imagine cleverly "averaging out" DNA sequencing errors somehow. But human DNA is 99.9% the same for everyone.  Blood relatives will be even more similar - perhaps only 1 in a million bases differing.  That's on the same order of magnitude of the best sequencing error.  Trying to eliminate the errors to get a repeatable digital representation, will map more than one person to the same digital representation, and hence to the same hash code "identity".   

The fourth way is to build a web of trust with crypto, check out OpenUDC project who have gone down that road.

CheapID is interesting for the privacy protection it aims to grant - but still subject to easy acquisition of fake IDs, as well as corruption of accreditation agencies.

I tried to come up with a solution based on Webs of Trust.  But a WoT is not as good at preventing a person from having multiple keys by getting different groups to verify trust in them.  Casual cheaters could probably be blocked by requiring them to inform their trust networks of their name, address, etc.  But a small group of cheaters could build their own sub-web of trust with a number of fake identities per real person.  The best counter I came up with for that was bounties for catching cheaters.  But that adds a lot of complexity for verification of cheater reports.   

[brush242]

TheCoin success depends on rapid roll-out.   Building up real world ID verification organizations would take too long - likely a decade to even get coverage of most major cities on Earth, decades to get close to universal coverage, even assuming no political interference.

Then you're skrewed. Rolling this out will take beyond decades, just to marshall the resources that would be necessary to ensure that 90+% of the world's population have access to some device, power, signal, markets, goods, et cetera. Plus, the environmentalist wackos will fight you every step of the way--they don't seem to realize that 1st World countries are not going to give up their standard of living, which means significantly more resources (coal and oil 'cuz dey hate dat nuqulear stuff) will be expended to bring the entire population up to even a modicum of bare necessities.

Biometrics sound good - but unique personal attributes are subject to high measurement error/variation.  A person could count on a slightly different digital representation from every capture.  Hash that, and you'll get a different hash every time - allowing multiple identity creation.   Attempts to eliminate those errors reduce the uniqueness of the measurements - creating higher likelihood of more than one person with the same ID code.

Consider DNA sequencing (though it will be too expensive, for several more decades, to be a practical global solution):   Even the best (expensive) sequencing has error rates of 1 in a million bases.  ("Cheap" methods, ~1 in 1000.)  For the ~3 billion bases in the human genome that's at least ~3000 errors per sequencing.   No two sequencings of a person's DNA are likely to ever give the same digital representation. 

One might imagine cleverly "averaging out" DNA sequencing errors somehow. But human DNA is 99.9% the same for everyone.  Blood relatives will be even more similar - perhaps only 1 in a million bases differing.  That's on the same order of magnitude of the best sequencing error.  Trying to eliminate the errors to get a repeatable digital representation, will map more than one person to the same digital representation, and hence to the same hash code "identity". 

This may be true now, but in the tens of decades it will take you to ever start setting The Plan, that won't be the case. Especially as I didn't really mean just DNA. It could just use all of the following: DNA, fingerprints, retinal scan, finger length ratios, et cetera. You'll be able to get the error/cheat rate to essentially zero.

CheapID is interesting for the privacy protection it aims to grant - but still subject to easy acquisition of fake IDs, as well as corruption of accreditation agencies.

I tried to come up with a solution based on Webs of Trust.  But a WoT is not as good at preventing a person from having multiple keys by getting different groups to verify trust in them.  Casual cheaters could probably be blocked by requiring them to inform their trust networks of their name, address, etc.  But a small group of cheaters could build their own sub-web of trust with a number of fake identities per real person.  The best counter I came up with for that was bounties for catching cheaters.  But that adds a lot of complexity for verification of cheater reports.

Yep. Cost after cost after cost after cost. And you still haven't gotten to the earnings/mining issues.

[TCraver]

So far I've described the "spatial identification for coin delivery" process as requiring a smartphone or similar mobile internet device - i.e. needing at least GPS and internet connection and camera. 

By 2020, smartphones will pretty much have displaced feature phones (though some large fraction of them may use WiFi for internet access) with around 80% of global population having one or more mobile internet devices.   And that's before considering any impact on demand from TheCoin being implemented - which might create demand for extremely cheap devices specifically for TheCoin distribution and use.

But suppose we wish to enable near global distribution of TheCoin now - as soon as the software can get written?  Phones at least capable of sending/receiving SMS are now in the hands of around 60% to 70% of global population.  SMS messaging can be gotten very cheaply, once one gets away from the absurd "Wireless Plan" SMS pricing in places like the US.

Can we leverage SMS to get going sooner, at least in areas where smartphone penetration is low and poverty is high?   

Instead of using GPS coordinates and photographs to reliably prove unique spatial identity, what if we use code exchanges between random recipients known to be in an area?    Each locale will have commonly known local places, which could be entered into TheCoin network and used to generate walking instruction messages to get random pairs of people to meet and exchange codes.  Once both parties have sent their codes, both would be sent directions to their next exchange point.    This system is slightly less reliable, in if anyone abandons their walk, they will break the chain of location proof for the person they were to meet.  A fall-back of allowing the abandoned person to try again with a location they haven't yet been to, should be sufficient to fix most of this.

The walking instructions might start with something like "Text back # of nearest location as starting point for TheCoin delivery:   1.Your Home.  2.Han's Bar.  3.Village well..."   That will set the baseline of persons who are ready to receive TheCoin, along with their location, allowing generation of pairs of persons to exchange codes at nearby locations.

A bit later each ready recipient would get a message like: "Your ID is 8253.  Go to Village well and find someone with ID 3549.  Give that person code 2967.  Message back the code they give you."  Etc.

After 3-5 locations and completed exchanges, TheCoins would be deposited to their accounts.  A total of about 8-12 (sent and received)  messages, probably costing less than 50 cents total.

So how might people attempt to cheat this system? 

They might collude to ignore directions and gather in a single spot to use multiple devices.  That won't work for large towns and cities, but could work for tiny villages with very few people, which nonetheless happen to have SMS mobile phone service, but not WiFi or mobile broadband.   Such places would tend to be poor - most people would have at most one device.  Any who have multiple devices would have to agree to pay each person they cheat with, to gain their cooperation.  So initially this would be a very tiny problem, benefiting the poorest, without having significant economic impact on TheCoin system overall. 

Still, it'd be necessary to counter it eventually.  Delays between code exchanges could be examined to look for odd variations in how long it takes recipients to get to exchange points.   When it appears that cheating has become rampant, indicating that most will have gotten enough income to purchase more than one device, it can be assumed that the villagers can now afford mobile internet devices and WiFi, and switch that region over to the standard system.  (Just knowing that this will happen will have some deterrent effect.) 

Note that this latter deterrent need only be implemented for the small fraction of the world's population living in tiny villages, so it is not a large added cost, and is a feature that can be added some time after TheCoin system has become globally established.

[TCraver]

A random thought about social consequences of the Spatial Location Proof of Identity system:

Some cultures place tight restrictions on women.  That will place members of such cultures at a financial disadvantage, in that their women may not be allowed to go meet random strangers (including men), in random locations.

Maybe the system will provide a little pressure for them to change, which from my perspective would be a good thing.

[brush242]

So how might people attempt to cheat this system?

I think your bigger issue will be getting 1st world people to use such a fiddly system. The tracking/privacy issues alone would be a disincentive.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

This sounds a lot like socialism.

If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?

[Apraksin]

This sounds a lot like socialism.

If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?

They would work since said income would be enough to survive living cheap, but not enough to live in relative luxury.

A much better question is: Why cant people ever do their research on basic income before asking the same stupid questions as the 100.000 previous askers and calling socialism?

Are you aware that Richard Nixon in his days wanted to implement basic income?  He certainly was no socialist.

The fact is that all research on basic income shows wery positive results. Reduction in mental and physical illness, better nutrition, less educational dropouts and economic growth due to a boom in small local businesses. BI is showing it self to be an extremely usefull tool for reducing powerty.

http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html

[thedarklight]

This is just cost/benefit analysis, which is what humans do with every single decision they make, no matter how small.

If humans were all rational all the time you would be correct but this is a bit far fetched. Still it's an ideal that we can say humans strive for.

Your paper sounds nice, just like Social Security sounds nice: "we're just asking everyone to pay their fair share to help those less-fortunate."

My paper makes no mention of wealth redistribution. In fact the concept my paper promotes is called universal basic capital. My paper presents a plan which would make everyone a capitalist by giving everyone a share in capitalism itself. If you keep excluding people from the rise of capitalism then you cannot expect people to believe in the system. Remove the barriers to entry to that as a community improves it's productivity, and profits rise, the dividend goes to the community who also are the shareholders.

Except, well, in practice it has been almost the dead worst investment ever; it takes an enormous amount of personal income, thus acts as a disincentive to productive work; and it has given the government a further tool to mislead the populace and devalue money.

This is a straw man argument. I said nothing about social security or socialism. You're debating a straw man and it makes me question whether you really read my paper. My paper is based on the work of James Albus and his book a path to a better world.  The difference is my idea is decentralized, global, and doesn't require a government permission. All it would require is that the SEC and government does not persecute future generations of capitalists who want to believe in capitalism.

Beyond that? Well, I'll just mention one here. If you actually create some sort of non-owned autonomous entity, someone else is going to take it away from you.

A decentralized autonomous corporation can either be owned by a community (like Bitcointalk) or it could be self owned. If it's self owned then the shares don't exist or they exist but only allow humans to vote. It would mean the machine or autonomous entity would profit for it's own sake and pay humans and machines alike to repair / replicate it.

So it is theoretically possible to have unowned machines. If the SEC for example were to persecute people then we could go with the unowned model. Just as we could say no one owns Bitcoin but it still exists.

[thedarklight]

Great discussion, but as brush242 says it would be far too messy to require proof-of-human work every single day.  A non-profit verification foundation makes more sense, and to avoid double-dipping/double-claiming it would need to base verification on a derivative of some unique identifying feature that cannot be changed.  I think there are three broad categories of such identifiers, all of them imperfect:

• Commercial identifiers (phone numbers, accounts on social networks)
• Government identifiers (passport metadata, tax/identity number etc)
• Biometrics (see CheapID for a proposal on this front)

The fourth way is to build a web of trust with crypto, check out OpenUDC project who have gone down that road.

They way to do it is to provide universal basic capital. Universal basic income still requires there be corporations or businesses providing products and services. Universal basic capital is owning shares in these businesses.

So if your community owns shares or if your nation owns them then the profit of the corporations would become a dividend. This dividend could be the universal basic dividend paid to every citizen or community member.

You don't need to tax anyone or redistribute wealth. Wealth creation itself would create the dividend just as it currently does for the small handful of shareholders we have. If everyone had their fair share of ownership then if capitalism does work it works for everyone.

Also it would make things more democratic. So if you're an anarcho-capitalist or a left-libertarian it would still work in your favour. If you're a billionaire then you don't have to worry about your taxes going up because it's not funded by taxes. What you would have to worry about is competition from decentralized businesses owned by communities.

If you're part of the community today we could take a snapshot of every member of the Bitcointalk forum. We could make each one prove they are human. We could then give each one beta access to a new kind of DAC or decentralized application.

This DAC would buy shares in other DACs and then hold them on behalf of the community. If the laws allow then these shares could be turned into real shares or signed over to each member who verifies they are a unique biological individual. The shares would then be legally signed over to them or given to them over Ethereum.

What happens next? Well this app would not be an ordinary app. Users of the app would earn shares in the app. The more you use the app the more potential shares you could earn. As the app becomes more profitable your shares would pay dividends from transaction fees. It's also possible to burn the transaction fees and cause deflation which also has the same effect.

The app would be 1.0. As a 2.0 is made or when different people make new DACs then they would simply airdrop to the shareholders of the original 1.0 app. That means once you join the community it's once per lifetime and you never have to do it again. The network on Ethereum would remember you and would know you're human.

So that would be something which could probably only be done on Ethereum in the form of a DAO. But I don't think taxing people or inflating a currency is a good way to produce a sustainable basic income. A sustainable income could best be produced if you either tax automation or own shares in automation.

[doldgigger]

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"?

captchacoin??

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

This sounds a lot like socialism.

If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?

They would work since said income would be enough to survive living cheap, but not enough to live in relative luxury.

A much better question is: Why cant people ever do their research on basic income before asking the same stupid questions as the 100.000 previous askers and calling socialism?

Are you aware that Richard Nixon in his days wanted to implement basic income?  He certainly was no socialist.

The fact is that all research on basic income shows wery positive results. Reduction in mental and physical illness, better nutrition, less educational dropouts and economic growth due to a boom in small local businesses. BI is showing it self to be an extremely usefull tool for reducing powerty.

http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html

Guaranteeing income is the best way to keep people from working.

Take disability insurance for example. The vast majority of people who go on disability (via social security) will never return to the workforce. In order to qualify for disability you must have some issue that "prevents" you from working for at least 1 year. Once you qualify for disability you continue to receive it assuming you do not earn (via a job) income over a certain amount for live (until retirement age at which point you receive social security "retirement" income). Most disabilities that people use to get on disability are not really preventing a person from working, but rather the fact that the person does not want to work.

Extended unemployment insurance is another good example.

When a person has a guaranteed income while looking for a job (unemployment) then they will have less of an incentive to be serious about looking for work until this guaranteed income is about to stop. There is a very high percentage of people who would "look" for work for a year or two years while on unemployment, then once their benefits expire would find a job within weeks (or find a job very close to the end of the benefit)

[zimmah]

One of the problems of guaranteed minimum income is that many people who are perfectly capable of working will refuse to do so because they do not feel the need to.

Ironically that is also the problem of capitalism, as people with enough money will just retire early (in fact that's the whole point of making money).

I think any system based on money will encourage some people to not contribute to society, that's why a society-based system would be so much better.

I remember seeing a threat about the danger of robots stealing our jobs. This is not a new topic either. When industrial revolution started some people predicted all jobs would be eventually outsourced to machines, but back than it was considered a good thing, and in fact it should be.

Some things require human thought and skills machines will never be able to perform, but most jobs can be perfectly handled by machines, fully automated, and much cheaper, faster, efficient and less wasteful than a human ever could. This would mean that no human would ever be required to work 40 hours a week, and leave us free to do what we desire most, while occasionally doing some light jobs that machines can't do. The whole world would benefit from it.

However in the current capitalistic world the only thing that would happen is that whoever replaced their workforce with robots will just safe a lot on wages and make a huge profit, but it will not directly benefit anyone other than the stakeholders of the company. In fact all the employees who got fired will be off way worse.

So even though the productivity and efficiency of the world increased, and by extension "true wealth" increased, relative wealth decreased for all but the very rich investors. That's one of the many things wrong with capitalism. Fiat money (and even gold/bitcoin) are not an accurate representation of true wealth, and people are more concerned about their own short term interest than about the long term interest of the world as a whole.

[thedarklight]

This sounds a lot like socialism.

If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?

They would work since said income would be enough to survive living cheap, but not enough to live in relative luxury.

A much better question is: Why cant people ever do their research on basic income before asking the same stupid questions as the 100.000 previous askers and calling socialism?

Are you aware that Richard Nixon in his days wanted to implement basic income?  He certainly was no socialist.

The fact is that all research on basic income shows wery positive results. Reduction in mental and physical illness, better nutrition, less educational dropouts and economic growth due to a boom in small local businesses. BI is showing it self to be an extremely usefull tool for reducing powerty.

http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html

Guaranteeing income is the best way to keep people from working.

Take disability insurance for example. The vast majority of people who go on disability (via social security) will never return to the workforce. In order to qualify for disability you must have some issue that "prevents" you from working for at least 1 year. Once you qualify for disability you continue to receive it assuming you do not earn (via a job) income over a certain amount for live (until retirement age at which point you receive social security "retirement" income). Most disabilities that people use to get on disability are not really preventing a person from working, but rather the fact that the person does not want to work.

Extended unemployment insurance is another good example.

When a person has a guaranteed income while looking for a job (unemployment) then they will have less of an incentive to be serious about looking for work until this guaranteed income is about to stop. There is a very high percentage of people who would "look" for work for a year or two years while on unemloyment, then once their benefits expire would find a job within weeks (or find a job very close to the end of the benefit)

When people work less productivity still goes up. Technology increases productivity.

So why do we need people to work? Automation is going to replace most of the jobs that people do and then what? Then people will be out of work and machines will do it. This is a similar situation to when we got rid of the draft and made enlistment voluntary.

So why hold onto a legacy attitude designed for the previous century? Adapt to the changing times bro.

One of the problems of guaranteed minimum income is that many people who are perfectly capable of working will refuse to do so because they do not feel the need to.

The economy does not need them working. If it did then it would pay them significantly more than they'd get from Basic Income or anything else.

Let's face the modern reality,  the service and retail jobs will not be done by humans for much longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDJc1NoGg2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Teo6veZOg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLTPbdT87a4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt0KOp5UiAI

Why would you need a human bartender or restaurant waiter in an era where the restaurants are being automated along with the bartender. The human worker culture of life is being phased out and human workers just aren't as important as they once were with the machines coming online.

This is why unions don't have much power anymore.