the "little toe" crypto currency

[grondilu]

I agree, it's very difficult to distribute fair in a decentralized manner. Maybe even impossible (?). Because even that crazy toe system doesn't actual solve it, does it? How do you make sure that a person who finds a block actually holds such an auction? They could just make up a new private key - claim it came from one of those toe DNA machines you are describing - and transfer the money there. Essential you would need to be able to verify for every coin that a unique toe cutting event happened for it - even with that video you were mentioning it would probably not be feasible to make sure that it is actually a new video instead of just a slightly modified copy of one of the millions of videos already recorded.

To distribute fair you need to be able to establish unique identities. I would think there are just two ways of doing that: Have a central registry (think government issued id cards) or have a web-of-trust. So maybe the Ripple system is a better fit for those people who want their "fair share".

But really, I find this whole complain that the distribution of Bitcoins is not fair pretty ridiculous. It's simply first-come-first-serve, a principle which is in effect in many places without people complaining. Do these critics also come to a concert late, and then complain how all the best spots are already taking and the whole concert is just sooo unfair?

I very much agree with all this.

My toecoin concept was just an thought experiment, and I soon realised that it would not actually work, for several reasons.  I thought it worthed presenting it on this forum, though.

[qwertzuiop71]

This is a marvelous thread. Your idea made me lough out loudly when it came to the actual toe part.
Seriously, I think this is a very important topic. I am relatively new to Bitcoin (maybe one month), and I am both fascinated and appalled by the whole idea. Obviously in contrast to most people here, I believe "fair" initial distribution is of utter importance for a new currency. Actually, I think it is the most important property (if not the only important property) of a new currency. If one random person or a random group of people started to create their own currency from scratch, and tried to pay for goods with this currency, nobody would ever accept it.
One way is to have a central, trusted authority handing out the money. Another way that would have never crossed my mind is the bitcoin idea (CPU power, now GPU power). This is more "fair" than anything I would have come up with, this is the fascinating side.
Also obviously in contrast to most people here, I still believe the initial bitcoin distribution is nevertheless pretty unfair. It is ok for early adopters to have some small advantage, but if the whole thing works out, they will probably be millionairs soon. The question is however whether the system is fair enough to succeed anyway. Current money is not at all distributed "fairly", and it might well be that bitcoin commerce just keeps growing despite of the unfair initial distribution. Still, it will be difficult to explain to newcomers. The totally unfair distribution of current money is well settled in the heads, and a new currency favouring nerdiness instead of provenance has to be legitimated.
Thus, I believe the bitcoin system is unfair, but maybe not more than other currencies.
I believe there might be better solutions using a "web of trust" and a Ripple-like approach (as suggested by jav), but I have no clear idea yet. As soon as I have a clear idea, I will obviously start my own monetary system 
What actually made me turn off the expensive GPU I just purchased solely to mine bitcoins after only 100 BTC is the ecological aspect. It is totally against my ideal to blow CO2 into the atmosphere like a madman only to solve equations that actually nobody needs to be solved. As far as I understand, the stability and security of the system relies on an ever increasing amount of computing power spent.
Not sure if I will ever turn it on again ...

[carp]

One way is to have a central, trusted authority handing out the money. Another way that would have never crossed my mind is the bitcoin idea (CPU power, now GPU power). This is more "fair" than anything I would have come up with, this is the fascinating side.
Also obviously in contrast to most people here, I still believe the initial bitcoin distribution is nevertheless pretty unfair. It is ok for early adopters to have some small advantage, but if the whole thing works out, they will probably be millionairs soon. The question is however whether the system is fair enough to succeed anyway.

True, if they hold off, shit, maybe they could be billionaires down the road. Course, if they did, that would probably drag a number of even later adopters into comfortable lives. Is that entirely "fair", well... if it was a garaunteed payout, I might say so. However, if that happens, well luck is going to play a part, can't blame people for having their long shot plan work out.

I have plenty of problem with people who just collect wealth to themselves even if it is detrimental to others. High level CEO contracts that pay out huge bonuses even for short term gains... things that create perverse incentives. However... making a long shot bet and having it pay off?

I would say that systemic inequities that continue into the future and magnify themselves are huge problems, problems that we need to address. However a one time inequity that is hard to avoid? Whats the worst that can come of a few new rich people?... it is clearly a better system than well....anything that has come before in currency. Small price for the world to pay considering that the USD is currently controlled by a cabal who can decide to just make more and lend it out to banks for free.

Current money is not at all distributed "fairly", and it might well be that bitcoin commerce just keeps growing despite of the unfair initial distribution. Still, it will be difficult to explain to newcomers. The totally unfair distribution of current money is well settled in the heads, and a new currency favouring nerdiness instead of provenance has to be legitimated.

I think you give people either too little or too much credit. We are quite familiar with unfair distribution of currency. Whether it is old favorites like gold or diamonds mined from the ground by slaves, up to modern day monies.

Those that do really care about that, well, they either will give it credit as being the fairest every created, or else they aren't going to be happy with it, and will want to do something else anyway. More power to them. Can't please everyone.

Do you have any evidence that most people will be more motivated by philosophical issues then by the ease of entry into getting and using a currency than anything else to make their decision as to what to use?

Thus, I believe the bitcoin system is unfair, but maybe not more than other currencies.
I believe there might be better solutions using a "web of trust" and a Ripple-like approach (as suggested by jav), but I have no clear idea yet. As soon as I have a clear idea, I will obviously start my own monetary system 

Case in point. Good luck, shit, I may even use it, there are worst things than having... gasp... choice :0

If you are thinking ripple, then why not... use ripple? Whats the issue with it that you want to solve? I mean, like I said, I approve of choice... but... unless you have something new to add, why reinvent the wheel?

What actually made me turn off the expensive GPU I just purchased solely to mine bitcoins after only 100 BTC is the ecological aspect. It is totally against my ideal to blow CO2 into the atmosphere like a madman only to solve equations that actually nobody needs to be solved. As far as I understand, the stability and security of the system relies on an ever increasing amount of computing power spent.
Not sure if I will ever turn it on again ...

Interested in selling the card? PM me if you are, I might be very interested. Course, if you really want to save CO2, you should probably take a hammer to it to prevent anyone from ever using it to spit out CO2 indirectly again.

This is true, but, so far, I think CO2 contribution from bitcoin is probably not terribly significant. Also, while we are talking about ever-increasing computing power, the energy cost per cycle actually is dropping at the same time. That's why I run VMs for most things.

[bittersweet]

Toes are too important for walking. Little fingers would be better.

[abstraction]

Toes are too important for walking. Little fingers would be better.

How will you play guitar then?

[Anonymous]

Toes are too important for walking. Little fingers would be better.

How will you play guitar then?

Who needs a guitar ...use an ipad 2 lol

Someone would probably start selling tonail clippings as derivatives.......Imagine how rich the guy would be with the worlds longest toenails !

[TiagoTiago]

...

What actually made me turn off the expensive GPU I just purchased solely to mine bitcoins after only 100 BTC is the ecological aspect. It is totally against my ideal to blow CO2 into the atmosphere like a madman only to solve equations that actually nobody needs to be solved. ...

Depending on where you live, electricity actualy has little to no carbon footprint (geothermal, hydroelectric, wind etc)