Cryptocurrency with the best distribution?

[nakaone]

give every human being the possibility to produce his own money under one currency (produce coins with your birth-certificate or your finger print)

Reliable PoI is for sure the desperately and still missing killer app

if I understood ristos post properly he says:

fiat creation is unfair because most people are excluded of money creation
central institutions for value production were historically neccessary, nowadays due to our beloved bitcoin protocol this is no longer the case
PoS as well as PoW still exclude most people in money production.

I am pretty sure that a decentralized proof of identy for money production on global scale is closest to perfect money creation.

Just imagine you give every human being the possibility to create a predefined amount of money a day, noone is excluded, noone earns money by producing money, market allocation is still in play for value distribution. I would bet that this baby would network - maybe something like that will make in the future miners for bitcoin security obsolete.

[1714809640]

1714809640

[1714809640]

1714809640

[1714809640]

1714809640

[1714809640]

1714809640

[1714809640]

1714809640

[rpietila]

You are all children, or at least not monetary economists 

The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).

[nakaone]

You are all children, or at least not monetary economists  

The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).

it does not create value because it excludes people in the creation of money. people need to buy bitcoin with fiat - that is the reason why it is lacking adoption. because for most western people fiat works. bitcoin offers some things which can be seen as superior but it is missing a way to integrate more people

demand for state currencies is driven by governments authority to raise taxes in that specific currency - - until now the integration despites early adopters was mostly driven by the expectation of appreciation of bitcoins value. - I think that I do not neccessarily need to tell you as a monetary economist what that normally means - I personally think that it is little different in bitcoin, but normally this is the definition of a bubble

with the part quoted you show that you do not want to create a currency, but a decentralized network with tokens, which creates value - but this is not a currency as well as bitcoin is not a currency by definition. I am pretty sure you as well as me have already found the second network which creates value .

your arrogance is remarkable - I assume that I am at least given academic history more of a monetary economist than you are

[NewLiberty]

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.

Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.

By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.

I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.

Another statistic, and a little analysis:

From a spot check of the moment there are 109 folks currently connected in the monero-dev irc on freenode, there are 500 in the Bitcoin developer IRC. 

So comparing the other statistics you've already gathered, it would seem the Monero community has a higher developer type / user type than Bitcoin.  This bodes well for its future, but may also indicate the need for user tools.  With those tools, Monero may more swiftly reach the userbase proportionate, which if Bitcoin is 1,000,000 people today, this would put the Monero userbase at 200,000.  Its not anywhere near that today, but it speaks to the potential to be unlocked when those tools are developed.

[toby27]

[ask]Read comments here,so according to that, can we make a list, some coin that have a big potential to grow up and survive in crypto market? 

[NewLiberty]

GE coins are the personal property of the imperial government (here, the current emperor) of a 240 x 10¹⁵ km³ empire (the largest celestially permissible for this planet).

That gives "These note are legal tender in all debts, public and private" a whole new meaning (and value).

Let me guess, your ideal coin is...
ForgivenessCoin?
Ask and ye shall receive...
Seek and ye shall find...
Knock and the paper wallet is opened unto thee?

All debts forgiven upon request for this coin.

[coinits]

Back to the core of money creation

In the current fiat system, when new credits ("money" eg. USD) are created, someone takes an obligation to pay it back with interest. Since very little money is actually created "out of thin air", there looms a constant threat that the debt defaults cascade and not enough money is found to pay them all (there is not enough in existence). This would theoretically allow the bankers to seize all property of everyone, because typically people are citizens of countries, whose governments have taken debt from the bankers. As long as this grand theft does not happen, the bankers and their cronies are busy consolidating the natural resources of the planet, such as gold (already about 80% in bankster vault), land and water and mineral deposits, in their control.

What they have managed to accomplish, shows that there is a great network effect in money, which can be 100% pocketed to the perpetrators of the system. In coin terms, that is like an infinite premine to the devs, and people can only get the transaction medium by promising to pay it back with interest. All the benefits of the system, transaction fees, interest payments, etc. go to the devs. In aggregate, the rest of the users are just running deeper and deeper into unpayable obligations, allowing the devs to force a dysfunctional inhuman lifestyle (called the "western world") on them, plus the devs having the killswitch as well.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." -Josiah Stamp, Bank of England.

Seeking for alternatives

(Once again I assume that the network security will be maintained by a mechanism, the best of which so far is POW, so that the rest of the chapter is talking about the initial creation of the monetary stock only)


We have already outlined the alternatives, of which one is POW. This is similar to gold mining in the sense that new units of money can be created by (theoretically) anyone, but the marginal cost of production of money is so high that the benefits for doing it should optimally be only comparable to the benefits of engaging in any other industry.

The initial distribution with POW has the issue of fixed supply. This is not economically without problems. With gold, if the purchasing power of gold rose, it encouraged more mining and more supply. With all current coin designs (save possible emunie), rising price does invite more mining, but the emission is not affected. With Bitcoin, this may have contributed to the self-fulfilling belief that the fixed supply is a resource to be hoarded, and sold to the later comers at a higher price. With altcoins, which do not have the luxury to call themselves "the one and only true coin", this thinking is likely a false premise. Just because a coin has a limited number of units, does not mean it is valuable based on that alone. It is always possible to make a new coin and once key people migrate to that, the previous alt is bound to die a slow death.

Coins with a very fast and fixed distribution (POS) just aggravate these problems, so I am not going into them.

Monero serves as an example of a coin that holds great promise, is 100% POW, no premine/instamine or that, and currently its price is below the average of its emission-weighted history (and also volume-weighted history, which is an easier qualification). It has of course the same challenges that every coin has, in building a community. But a special challenge comes from the ultimate "fairness" that Monero, partly because of the idealism of the current core team, partly because of its history, has: there is not enough funds to develop the coin at a speed that is required to keep up. The debt currency developers (bankers) have all the money in the world, same to a smaller degree applies to POS and premine coin devs, but Monero devs do not have it.

The economic history of Monero is that a great resource has been expended to mining it. Some of it has been miner profits, but most has been consumed as mining costs. The current price is below that of purchasing the coins for the aggregate of investors, so the investors have been not only paying for the mining costs but also subsidized the mining profits from their own pocket. On top of that, the developers, who also own stakes, have subsidized the coin creation + subsidized the development. It has been a wonderful experiment, but we have to face the facts that at present we are deeply on the red.

I am not proposing anything to Monero (this is important to say since I serve as Operational Executive in the MEW, so my words might be interpreted to apply to that), just thinking how the initial distribution system could be make better so that it retains all the fairness, but the added value from the emission, or a part of it, could be captured to serve the adoption of the coin so that in the end the network effect would make everyone better off, not only the first, middle and latter adopters, but the society at large. Optimally, the universal adoption of the currency would be such a great boon to the liberty and well-being of everyone that even the ones who "lose" as a result of their previous wealth's purchasing power reduction, are mostly happy with the result.

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

Why not do a crowd funding program on Kickstarter or some such thing? Voluntary contributions in exchange for trinkets or memorabilia. All proceeds go to the Devs.

[NewLiberty]

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

Adoption benefits may be best gained from saving as much cost as possible for newcoin.
Saving mining costs can give newcoin more room to grow, as maximal value is available from investment to stimulate adoption.
 
One method to do this would be to employ merge-mining from the outset with another existing coin.
Additionally development cost can be saved with this merge mined coin if the existing coin is friendly to the idea.  Developers of the existing coin will keep the coin compatible with everything except for only necessary changes at initial release, so minimal or no additional work for most commits if there is some process automation for commits.

This has potential downstream benefits by enhancing developer support for the initial coin, as well as increase the value of the initial coin by stimulating more profitable mining, thus more mining for initial coin as well, and thus more security for the initial coin.

Thus adoption efforts receive maximal support from the value accretion.  Highest utility at lowest cost.

Consider that when something is less expensive it is more used.  If adoption is the goal, economy of scale from the outset must be assumed as necessary.

By example, electricity was expensive compared to total cost of living there was maximal conservation.  When processors and memory were scarce, every bit counted.  When these costs diminished usage became ubiquitous.
USA lost $55 Million dollars last year in their penny manufacture (above the value of the pennies made), lets not follow their fail.

[rabbiter]

I defy anyone to find a better more accessible to the masses fun and fair distribution ever!

I feel like once people hear about this it's gonna be big.


Apparently exchanges are coming, it's very under the radar at the moment. Simply download app and you can run in background, awesome!

http://www.mangocoinz.com

[true-asset]

I think MangoCoinz has a chance of being distributed amongst a wider audience than others.

[Man-aqua]

NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.

[sumantso]

NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.

Both numbers are dubious. Its much less than 3000, less than 2000 probably as there were lots of multiple accounts. Similarly with NXT, there were multiple donations by the same individual.

[rpietila]

NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.

Please if you state that something is "better", tie it to the body-of-knowledge of "what is better" provided by me.

If you don't want to use my framework, argue that betterness has another criteria, state them, and be ready to discuss.

This way the conversation improves and leads to interesting conclusions.

/OP: sorry for hijack 

[digitalindustry]

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.

Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.

By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.

I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.

Doge ; )

yeah no problem that's got to be all above board, the fact of the matter is it will all come out in the wash,(everyone here knows that) and I was talking about in % terms.

Equally as dead as Monero? you are too hard on yourself, I never said it was "dead" I'm just saying its a long way behind because of the "tech insider" pump that i easily could have been involve in, as you know i went on to your topic an called it as it was happening, but when I make % gains its not on these little pump dump actions, I just don't see the point?

Monero is just another crypto that "can't stand the heat" so to say, the heat being the ability to be distributed.

its basically too weak to be able to be properly distributed.

so you have moved back to some faulty logic that only the "business class" should control it (similar to the way Bitcoin furiously tries to ignore the elephant in the room right now ha ha)

i can't even conceive of how that works?

I'll make a bet - Myriad is a Crypto that "is standing the heat" it had the strength to put its units out into the system just like Quark did.

I bet both Myriad and Quark over the medium to long term outperform Monero .

if i'm wrong I'll concede your "business class theory" is correct.

 

[rpietila]

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.

Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.

By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.

I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.

Doge ; )

yeah no problem that's got to be all above board, the fact of the matter is it will all come out in the wash,(everyone here knows that) and I was talking about in % terms.

Equally as dead as Monero? you are too hard on yourself, I never said it was "dead" I'm just saying its a long way behind because of the "tech insider" pump that i easily could have been involve in, as you know i went on to your topic an called it as it was happening, but when I make % gains its not on these little pump dump actions, I just don't see the point?

Monero is just another crypto that "can't stand the heat" so to say, the heat being the ability to be distributed.

its basically too weak to be able to be properly distributed.

so you have moved back to some faulty logic that only the "business class" should control it (similar to the way Bitcoin furiously tries to ignore the elephant in the room right now ha ha)

i can't even conceive of how that works?

I'll make a bet - Myriad is a Crypto that "is standing the heat" it had the strength to put its units out into the system just like Quark did.

I bet both Myriad and Quark over the medium to long term outperform Monero .

if i'm wrong I'll concede your "business class theory" is correct.

I am sorry but nothing you say makes any sense, including your interpretations of what I might have said.

Are you sure you are ok? 

[world-dollar]

You are all children, or at least not monetary economists  

The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).

it does not create value because it excludes people in the creation of money. people need to buy bitcoin with fiat - that is the reason why it is lacking adoption. because for most western people fiat works. bitcoin offers some things which can be seen as superior but it is missing a way to integrate more people

demand for state currencies is driven by governments authority to raise taxes in that specific currency - - until now the integration despites early adopters was mostly driven by the expectation of appreciation of bitcoins value. - I think that I do not neccessarily need to tell you as a monetary economist what that normally means - I personally think that it is little different in bitcoin, but normally this is the definition of a bubble

with the part quoted you show that you do not want to create a currency, but a decentralized network with tokens, which creates value - but this is not a currency as well as bitcoin is not a currency by definition. I am pretty sure you as well as me have already found the second network which creates value .

your arrogance is remarkable - I assume that I am at least given academic history more of a monetary economist than you are

This ties into why World Dollar (http://www.world-dollar.com) is so brilliant, no-one has to "buy" into it, and everyone is integrated into it as it is distributed to everyone, equally. Expect big things from WLD.

[rpietila]

What makes it valuable? Why would somebody try to amass them? How long does it take to arrive at the functional "optimal" distribution with the 4 classes? Is it even possible?

[digitalindustry]

I am sorry but nothing you say makes any sense, including your interpretations of what I might have said.

Are you sure you are ok? 

Sorry i'll say it without the rant.

Monero is weak and can't handle to be PoW distributed by a common known algo  ( like Quark )

Myriad also used multiple common algos, ( with separate difficulty) it has been mined in a similar fashion.

so summary:

- Monero weak.

- Myriad, Quark are robust.

The weak will under-perform against the robust in the medium to long term.

so you are actually just making bad investment decisions.

i.e those that invest in robust systems will make more % gains in the long term than little pump and dumps.

[rpietila]

so summary:

- Monero weak.

- Myriad, Quark are robust.

The weak will under-perform against the robust in the medium to long term.

OK. So now please try to add some reasoning to your opinion. What makes them weak or robust?

(Actually everyone has just told me to ignore you )

[devphp]

Any PoW crypto is weak due to fiat leak. There you go, almost makes a rhyme. Electricity/datacenter renting fees are the sword of Damocles overhanging PoW economy. With the looming exception (still to be confirmed) of those PoW cryptos that mine most of their supply quickly enough and then go PoW/PoS, PoS, or use a different mechanism to protect their network but at the same type do not stay very inflationary (auXPoW in Doge, 5-algo in Myriad although the prospects of Myriadcoin are bleak due to no meaningful community). But you probably will refute this argument for some reason, and it's ok