A coin free of Greed

[nmersulypnem]

I'm researching the set of Altcoins, both existing and in development, and I can't help but notice one commonality they all share: Greed.   A lot of them include great new innovations but are disappointingly shrouded in a cloud of pre-mining, venture capital, and/or fundraising.

So let me ask you all this: In an ideal world, if you wanted to launch the ideal coin;  One that would be the perfect future global digital currency (not a store of wealth), how would you structure it?  One caveat - neither you, nor any early adopter could get rich off of making it.

Ideas might include...  no block rewards for the first year; all block rewards are locked for x years, inflation/delfation rate fixed at x% or proportionate to transaction volume,  Ethereum script features, etc...

[PinkPotatos]

Franko is the one you are looking for. No premine, block reward halves every 22 years, uses kimoto gravity well to make sure dedicated miners get the most for their mining, does tons of charity. All around very fair coin.

[TamB]

I agree with this. If anything ruins the promise of cryptos, it is the rampant greed and speculation surrounding their establishment. Technically, the ideal coin would reflect a completely different starting point.

[brokedummy]

If you are looking for a currency guaranteed to be worthless, we already have enough fiat currencies. I guess you could make a coin with an infinite supply and block reward doubling every two days. That ought to keep the speculators away.

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Not to mention that 10 or 100 the block size for the first 100, 1000 or 10000 blocks that some coins has had.

I nominate Seucrecoin beacuse of its features and stability.

[TamB]

'Worthless' - I feel the recession called for a redefinition of the fundamental assumptions of economics, what is 'worth' something and why, what 'profits' people and how.

[caratheodory]

How are you going to make it fair? People who invest first take the risk to win/lose money. People who invest last complain it was not fair, but they refused to take the risk or were not there in the first place.

Even if you, today, distribute a coin equally between everybody that has ever made an account on bitcointalk, you would still only distribute it to some absurdly small percent of the world, and anyone joining later will be disadvantaged. All you can do is delay how long before early adopters profit, and if no early adopter profits, why would anyone risk time, money and commitment to your personal, egalitarian scamcoin (that promises a lot but gives nothing).

Someone mentioned coins where halving takes a long time (this creates long term inflation which depletes early adopters' advantage), but all this does is concentrate the amount of wealth in the hands of rich miners (who mine a lot all the time by investing in their equipment). The reason our current currency system is morally bankrupt is that the money is printed freely and the first people to put their hands on it are the rich, the corrupt and the powerful. I think that as long as we use a currency where the money supply can't be arbitrarily changed and is eventually capped, the wealth will get redistributed as people use the currency, short of the currency dying.

[keithers]

im sure at some point there will be a coin called "Greed"

[heskey]

Projections of beautiful women, cars and real estates is what keeps them computers warm. It's the basic structure of our thinking - enhanced by a hollywood influenced culture.

[nmersulypnem]

How are you going to make it fair? People who invest first take the risk to win/lose money. People who invest last complain it was not fair, but they refused to take the risk or were not there in the first place.

What if, instead of pre-mine, people who pay for the dev get a small percentage of tx fees for X years.  So they don't get tied to the price of the coin (and are therefore ok with slight inflation), but they still have some chance at being paid multiple times what they invested (if they help grow the economy)?

What do you think?

[Nullu]

It's quite ironic that Premine is one of the few coins where people are just as happy to give it away as they are to hoard it.

I think cryptocurrency naturally imbues greed. The only way to change the way coins are distributed is to change the game.

[Isildur23]

If you are looking for a coin with no greed ---> http://qubic.boards.net/ but the developer is busy now with other projects and will finish this one later

[Coldchurch]

a coin free of greed, is like healthy chocolate: it tastes like shit. 

[caratheodory]

How are you going to make it fair? People who invest first take the risk to win/lose money. People who invest last complain it was not fair, but they refused to take the risk or were not there in the first place.

What if, instead of pre-mine, people who pay for the dev get a small percentage of tx fees for X years.  So they don't get tied to the price of the coin (and are therefore ok with slight inflation), but they still have some chance at being paid multiple times what they invested (if they help grow the economy)?

What do you think?

That is interesting. I assume here you mean a one time payment at the beginning, aren't they early investors (which is 'greedy' and 'unfair'). How do you distribute the coins initially? With mining you get early miners and adopters. And you can't give all the coins out to do PoS because it goes against your pre-mine idea. You still need to find a way to give people coins and to do so without giving someone the advantage.

The point I'm trying to make is that someone will always have the advantage and it will always be unfair. Even if you start the world of crypto completely fairly by giving equal (theoretically preventing double+ shares) shares to the entire world, you still will get an unfair result because some people ALREADY own more than others (in physical shares) and can leverage that advantage to get an advantage in the cryptoworld.

[nmersulypnem]

The point I'm trying to make is that someone will always have the advantage and it will always be unfair.

I think there must be a way to beat the greed.  I'm not convinced there has to be winners and losers.

I guess what I'm starting to think is that the idea of currency appreciation IS the problem.  If, and I'm thinking out loud here...  IF the currency was issued to miners as some multiple of the tx fee - so, for example, I initiate the genesis transaction, and I pay 0.01 fee, and the miner would get the fee x 2 (ie no flat block reward).  (There's no way to game that unless you have 51% of the mining power). This would also keep inflation proportion to economic growth, THEN it would actually never be profitable to hold the coins at all.

THEREFORE, if someone were to pay a dev (at living cost) for his initial work then the investor would get, not a fixed amount of coins, but a percentage of future tx fees (essentially a share paying a variable dividend).  We could, theoretically sell a small amount, maybe 10% of fees for the first X years.

Perhaps if we sell them as such that people continuously dilute themselves.  So I could set aside 10% of tx fees for the first 5 years, and I can sell one share for 0.1BTC, and every subsequent share sold simply continues to split that 10%.  So early adopters are only rewarded until they are diluted (or maybe there's a formula that gives them a slight edge to be fair).   ...and then when the code is released, investors are closed (or maybe it's more fair to keep it open forever and funnel the money to charity or something?).

just spit-balling here.

[matt608]

What about a coin where you generate coins by generating addresses.  You can just create as many of these coins for yourself as you want and so can anyone on the network.  Would people trade trade these for anything?  Perhaps, they could sit there clicking stupidly to generate addresses (lol) for half an our and generate perhaps 100 billion coins, which they could then give to someone as a gift or use in a giveaway.  So the proof-of-work is done by humans sitting and clicking on a computer.  It would be an interesting experiment at least.

OR similar, but better:  Why not make it so PEOPLE have to solve very simple mathematical problems to generate coins, could be done in a format where software can't read and solve the problems.  It would be a great way to increase the use of mental arithmetic and maths, helping educate the world.

[aysyr]

You should take a look at Gridcoin.

The community there is all about what Gridcoin does which is try to offset energy going into mining to also go towards research projects via BOINC. No one there switches back and forth between coins, even before we got into an exchange (and we were only added to one about a week ago).

If you want to learn more you can also visit our temporary forums at Cryptocointalk. Unfortunately it doesn't have all the requirements you need, but there was no pre-mine and it's a coin aiming at a good cause.

[gatra]

please check https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=446703.0
or go to riecoin.org and see the "Fair launch" part

[freigeist]

what about timekoin?
http://www.timekoin.org/

Is anybody here using it?!

[zulzedd]

Step forward in this case is Gridcoin. Not perfect, but, at least, it forces miners to put some power into science calculations. I hope this coin or it's idea will grow up some day. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324118