Most efficient distribution strategies

[markm]

Many cities, provinces, states, organistations, and nations already have "fair distribution" currencies already in place.

They tend to be referred to as "democracies", the coins being referred to as "votes".

They tend to be distributed by the counting of heads, one vote per head, albeit often a head has to have been around a while before it counts.

It seems to me that most of, or certainly a lot of, the motivations people mention for wanting to "fairly distribute" currency are just the very kinds of things for which votes ought to be the currency of choice.

Just like cyptocurrencies, votes can be complicated and confusing to try to use.

So practice. Find out all the elections you can get yourself a vote in, and go spend those votes.

-MarkM-

[iopq]

Many cities, provinces, states, organistations, and nations already have "fair distribution" currencies already in place.

They tend to be referred to as "democracies", the coins being referred to as "votes".

They tend to be distributed by the counting of heads, one vote per head, albeit often a head has to have been around a while before it counts.

It seems to me that most of, or certainly a lot of, the motivations people mention for wanting to "fairly distribute" currency are just the very kinds of things for which votes ought to be the currency of choice.

Just like cyptocurrencies, votes can be complicated and confusing to try to use.

So practice. Find out all the elections you can get yourself a vote in, and go spend those votes.

-MarkM-

but that's wrong because only the most votes wins

I can't use a vote to buy myself anything small
but I liked the planet dollar concept of giving out 100 free to everyone + 1000 free for a facebook like

it's like $0.75 a piece now (and very limited ability to cash out on a chinese exchange) but the idea is to spread it first before dumping it, so that the coin has first very little reason to get dumped (useless to dump it now) but to get acceptance first by exchanges (because of the large amount of stakeholders) and miners (low difficulty, but also low rewards at first - doesn't encourage people to get in early, encourages people to get in late as well)

the idea for the coin to get maximum distribution and popularity in maybe a year - where the mining rewards are at maximum so the high difficulty doesn't prevent people from mining it
and as the growth slows down, so will the mining rewards and the inflation keeping the price of the currency stable

I actually had the same idea, but someone already executed it the way I wanted to do it
so really you might even get tip bots, merchants, etc. a year from now and actually people will be interested in getting their 1100 PDR because they want to tip on facebook, not because they want to dump it

[Spekulatius]

Many cities, provinces, states, organistations, and nations already have "fair distribution" currencies already in place.

They tend to be referred to as "democracies", the coins being referred to as "votes".

They tend to be distributed by the counting of heads, one vote per head, albeit often a head has to have been around a while before it counts.

It seems to me that most of, or certainly a lot of, the motivations people mention for wanting to "fairly distribute" currency are just the very kinds of things for which votes ought to be the currency of choice.

Just like cyptocurrencies, votes can be complicated and confusing to try to use.

So practice. Find out all the elections you can get yourself a vote in, and go spend those votes.

-MarkM-

Nice. First I was like . Then I was like  . Then I was like 

Thinking of votes as currency (or rather reemable tokens) is an interesting concept. They might not be great as unit of account (because they are indevisible) but they certainly have value. You can also monetize them by selling (or renting) your votes to the highest bidder (aka parliaments

[Spekulatius]

Many cities, provinces, states, organistations, and nations already have "fair distribution" currencies already in place.

They tend to be referred to as "democracies", the coins being referred to as "votes".

They tend to be distributed by the counting of heads, one vote per head, albeit often a head has to have been around a while before it counts.

It seems to me that most of, or certainly a lot of, the motivations people mention for wanting to "fairly distribute" currency are just the very kinds of things for which votes ought to be the currency of choice.

Just like cyptocurrencies, votes can be complicated and confusing to try to use.

So practice. Find out all the elections you can get yourself a vote in, and go spend those votes.

-MarkM-

but that's wrong because only the most votes wins

I can't use a vote to buy myself anything small
but I liked the planet dollar concept of giving out 100 free to everyone + 1000 free for a facebook like

it's like $0.75 a piece now (and very limited ability to cash out on a chinese exchange) but the idea is to spread it first before dumping it, so that the coin has first very little reason to get dumped (useless to dump it now) but to get acceptance first by exchanges (because of the large amount of stakeholders) and miners (low difficulty, but also low rewards at first - doesn't encourage people to get in early, encourages people to get in late as well)

the idea for the coin to get maximum distribution and popularity in maybe a year - where the mining rewards are at maximum so the high difficulty doesn't prevent people from mining it
and as the growth slows down, so will the mining rewards and the inflation keeping the price of the currency stable

I actually had the same idea, but someone already executed it the way I wanted to do it
so really you might even get tip bots, merchants, etc. a year from now and actually people will be interested in getting their 1100 PDR because they want to tip on facebook, not because they want to dump it

The Problem with low value is that people wont regard their coins much before they become valuable. So if you give away your NoValueUntilXX-coins people will probably loose them or throw em away just like the early bitcoiners. So you have to hold them for them until they are willing to claim them. Auroracoin solves this problem.

[superresistant]

Many cities, provinces, states, organistations, and nations already have "fair distribution" currencies already in place.
They tend to be referred to as "democracies", the coins being referred to as "votes".
They tend to be distributed by the counting of heads, one vote per head, albeit often a head has to have been around a while before it counts.
It seems to me that most of, or certainly a lot of, the motivations people mention for wanting to "fairly distribute" currency are just the very kinds of things for which votes ought to be the currency of choice.
Just like cyptocurrencies, votes can be complicated and confusing to try to use.
So practice. Find out all the elections you can get yourself a vote in, and go spend those votes.

Voting for a selection of pigs devoted to corporations & money is called plutocracy.

Democracy does not exist in the world of money.

[HCLivess]

superresistant is correct. People do not want what they would get anyway without having to work for it.

[Spekulatius]

What if all holders of any coins could redeem them for a fair price for some kind of metacurrency that runs on top of all of them? Network effects would outwage all other coins including Bitcoin.

[iopq]

Many cities, provinces, states, organistations, and nations already have "fair distribution" currencies already in place.

They tend to be referred to as "democracies", the coins being referred to as "votes".

They tend to be distributed by the counting of heads, one vote per head, albeit often a head has to have been around a while before it counts.

It seems to me that most of, or certainly a lot of, the motivations people mention for wanting to "fairly distribute" currency are just the very kinds of things for which votes ought to be the currency of choice.

Just like cyptocurrencies, votes can be complicated and confusing to try to use.

So practice. Find out all the elections you can get yourself a vote in, and go spend those votes.

-MarkM-

but that's wrong because only the most votes wins

I can't use a vote to buy myself anything small
but I liked the planet dollar concept of giving out 100 free to everyone + 1000 free for a facebook like

it's like $0.75 a piece now (and very limited ability to cash out on a chinese exchange) but the idea is to spread it first before dumping it, so that the coin has first very little reason to get dumped (useless to dump it now) but to get acceptance first by exchanges (because of the large amount of stakeholders) and miners (low difficulty, but also low rewards at first - doesn't encourage people to get in early, encourages people to get in late as well)

the idea for the coin to get maximum distribution and popularity in maybe a year - where the mining rewards are at maximum so the high difficulty doesn't prevent people from mining it
and as the growth slows down, so will the mining rewards and the inflation keeping the price of the currency stable

I actually had the same idea, but someone already executed it the way I wanted to do it
so really you might even get tip bots, merchants, etc. a year from now and actually people will be interested in getting their 1100 PDR because they want to tip on facebook, not because they want to dump it

The Problem with low value is that people wont regard their coins much before they become valuable. So if you give away your NoValueUntilXX-coins people will probably loose them or throw em away just like the early bitcoiners. So you have to hold them for them until they are willing to claim them. Auroracoin solves this problem.

So is communitycoin a better idea? Only 1000 people get it, and they have to be active participants at bitcointalk or the greater altcoin community. It's also POS so it has no mining at all, only minting.

[x0rcist]

Proof of Time; be rewarded for the time you are connected to the network

[FredOm]

I invite you to skim through this text:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552226.msg6009832#msg6009832

Especially the paragraph "The filthy rich ..."

BTC  18wXaAGzE9HTsF14LWf6e4tXCYuADSMf9h
[BC] BJJWgFj9Q3crpuZZN5GBJfvFTojZUZbmwf

[d5000]

Proof of Time; be rewarded for the time you are connected to the network

Does already exist: http://timekoin.org

It is all about incentives.

I am about to draw a concept that will reward stability. I'm pretty advanced, although it has some level of complexity

[precrime3]

It seems to be a mixture of POW/POS and actually physical distribution. Also, getting on exchanges ASAP, and press releases would also further distribution IMO

[superresistant]

Proof of Time; be rewarded for the time you are connected to the network

Does already exist: http://timekoin.org
It is all about incentives.
I am about to draw a concept that will reward stability. I'm pretty advanced, although it has some level of complexity

Does it work ?

[precrime3]

Proof of Time; be rewarded for the time you are connected to the network

Does already exist: http://timekoin.org

It is all about incentives.

I am about to draw a concept that will reward stability. I'm pretty advanced, although it has some level of complexity

Would this work like POS? Seems interesting, might start "mining" it.

[d5000]

Are you referring to Timekoin or to my "secret" concept?

Timekoin seems to work, it is online since 2012. Only it is pretty inflationary and some people believe that its security concept is not sound, but until now no severe flaw has been found.

Now the concept I'm developing is about value stability related to goods and services. In short: it would reward merchants and other people which "back" the currency's value, so it's not about mining or something like this. It needs a decentralized exchange to work, so it's pretty much science fiction for now .

[nextcoine]

Thanks!

[Spekulatius]

Proof of Time; be rewarded for the time you are connected to the network

How can you make sure that 1 participant doesnt cheat by connecting through 100k proxy identities (he gets all the rewards while the fair players get only whats left)?

Is there any service to the network the participants contribute while being connected?

[Spekulatius]

Cross-posted from here:
MASTERCOIN VS NXT
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=639060.msg7456640#msg7456640

Auroracoin showed how it can be done, although they ultimately failed for a couple of reasons, the concept is good. Maybe in a decade from now a similar thing will be done with a Bitcoin successor, who knows.

NEM is the best with the distribution concept. Great team too. The next big thing.

I have to hand it to NEM. Their distribution concept is novel by any definition. Whether or not it has much success, we'll have to find out.

Any coin that focuses on fair distribution or any type of gimmicky feature will sooner or later fail.  You can not innovate based on one feature that has no worth or value in the real world. only a handful of broke folks ever complain about unfair disitribution cuz they live in a world of "scarcity".  if u live in a world with an "abundance" mindset. u don't pay attention to nonsense such as unfair distribution.

I agree with you that the fair distribution aspect on its own cannot secure a long term success. It depends on utility x scarcety to create (=) value. Only when a currency has those two qualities it will be used. Nevertheless a fair distribution can greatly contribute to the long term success of any given currency in a competitive environment such as the cryptocoin space. In a theoretical case of two contenders (Acoin and Bcoin) with equal qualities and environment, the one that manages to be more equally and broadly distributed would win out over the one that pursues a narrow distribution imo. The main causes would be network effects which constitute higher adoption, recognition, larger community in holders, developers and investors and faster innovation rate. A real world example that comes close to the hypothetical case described may be the Monero/Bytecoin case where both chains have been introduced to the public almost simultaneously, they have almost the same qualities (Monero is a clone of Bytecoin with slower emission schedule and faster block times) but differ in the distribution by a large extent (Bytecoin 83% stealth mined, Monero 0% pre/stealthmined). Monero in opposition to Bytecoin has already achieved a huge appreciation in price, market cap and daily volume, however this case is very young and no conclusions can be drawn regarding the long term development of this case.

Your second argument goes in the direction of what has been mentioned here before and is also valid: that in order for acceptance a currency has to be perceived as valuable by its holders or it will be dumped at the first best occasion. In case of Auroracoin this perception was most likely not present with most of its target group. Thus the biggest part of the claimed coins were dumped immediately. With floating exchange rates and legal tender laws not strictly enforced, the reverse case of "Gresham's Law" applies, which praphrased states that "Good Money will drive bad money out of circulation into savings". Good money being the one with most perceived value compared to its exchange rate. So yes, with value people will accept the new coin and try to accumulate it (like Bitcoin). Without value, they will dump it for any other currency (like they did with Auroracoin for Krona).