Universal Dividend

[bytemaster]

The core of the argument that new comers are "owed" something simply because they are new.  So the question becomes "who" owes them a share of the bitcoin stock.   

If the answer is "from all existing bitcoin owners according to their ability to all new bitcoin users according to their 'need' for 'fairness'" then I smell a communist rat. 

What is fair to the existing owners of bit coins?   Would bitcoins have any value at all if it were not for the existing owners making sacrifices and taking risks to invest in bitcoins on speculation that they may be worth something? 

It is like the hen the works all day to harvest wheat to make bread and no one helps her and then, after the bread is made, all of the other barn yard animals want a "fair share" of the loaf. 

[1714020543]

1714020543

[kiba]

The bitcoin users who opt in this system and actively trading are in fact taking a risk. They are banking on the success of bitcoin.

[Red]

I'm not arguing that anyone is an idiot. I'm just trying to clarify the issue Galuel is concerned about. (I hate his solution by the way.)

Suppose that Bitcoin had launched slightly differently, but otherwise was exactly the same implementation.

Suppose that it was launched as a closed beta, but there was already considerable interest. Suppose 10,000 people submitted requests to join the first day. But suppose Satoshi decided that he needed to monitor the system closely, because his reputation as a software developer depended on it. He simply wanted to spot and fix bugs before they would have any wide spread consequences.

So to be fair, he decide to randomly choose 100 people the first day, then to choose 100 new random people to join each day for 100 days until the initial request list was exhausted. After that the system would leave beta and anyone could join who wanted.

Would this have been *more fair* or *less fair* then the "he who hears of bitcoin first, joins first" approach that is being used?

I say, it depends on if you got your acceptance the 1st day or the 100th day. But you may feel differently.

[hugolp]

I'm not arguing that anyone is an idiot. I'm just trying to clarify the issue Galuel is concerned about. (I hate his solution by the way.)

Suppose that Bitcoin had launched slightly differently, but otherwise was exactly the same implementation.

Suppose that it was launched as a closed beta, but there was already considerable interest. Suppose 10,000 people submitted requests to join the first day. But suppose Satoshi decided that he needed to monitor the system closely, because his reputation as a software developer depended on it. He simply wanted to spot and fix bugs before they would have any wide spread consequences.

So to be fair, he decide to randomly choose 100 people the first day, then to choose 100 new random people to join each day for 100 days until the initial request list was exhausted. After that the system would leave beta and anyone could join who wanted.

Would this have been *more fair* or *less fair* then the "he who hears of bitcoin first, joins first" approach that is being used?

I say, it depends on if you got your acceptance the 1st day or the 100th day. But you may feel differently.

In reality, which option is more fair is a personal thing. Its subjective. This is why avoiding government impositions is so great. Because both groups can get to try what they think its more fair (or whatever they want). If it was a authoritarian system whether the leaders decide or whether it is voted, only one system could be implemented.

If this guy wants to do the other system, fine. I hope him good as long as the system is voluntary. But that kind of system will only work through government force, and, in my opinion, that is what he is aiming at, hiding it behind nice and moral-sounding arguments. But if he really wants to create and try such a system as a voluntary currency, its fine with me and I hope he succeeds.

[bytemaster]

With steady deflation there is an automatic universal dividend (purchasing power) to all owners of coins. 

Thus bitcoins are like stock in the economy.  As the economy becomes more profitable (produces more) the value of the stock goes up.

[Galuel]

I absolutely don't want to impose any system.

I just think, and propose arguments for Universal Dividend as the best system for creating money because of spatial symetry (All created money must go to the members), and time symetry (During a living time each individual should receive more or less the same amount of created money, and no generation should be prefered from the time point of view).

The fair point of view concerning symetry is considering space and time, and not one or the other. For instance when you create money from a central bank this is assymetric space money, and from a specific generation it's an assymetric time money.

And in fact, of course, I will run this system within an existing one, or in a new one, without imposing it.

I agree with the contractual necessicity of volontary adoption of a money system.

Thanks for your contributions.

[Red]

With steady deflation there is an automatic universal dividend (purchasing power) to all owners of coins. 

Thus bitcoins are like stock in the economy.  As the economy becomes more profitable (produces more) the value of the stock goes up.

The French website suggests that the concept of paying dividends proportional to how many coins each person possesses would be what is commonly called "regressive". (i.e. The rich get richer relative to the poor.)

Paying dividends in proportion to the population, (one person, one share) is more "progressive". (i.e. The poor gain relative to the rich.)

[FreeMoney]

I absolutely don't want to impose any system.

I just think, and propose arguments for Universal Dividend as the best system for creating money because of spatial symetry (All created money must go to the members), and time symetry (During a living time each individual should receive more or less the same amount of created money, and no generation should be prefered from the time point of view).

The fair point of view concerning symetry is considering space and time, and not one or the other. For instance when you create money from a central bank this is assymetric space money, and from a specific generation it's an assymetric time money.

And in fact, of course, I will run this system within an existing one, or in a new one, without imposing it.

I agree with the contractual necessicity of volontary adoption of a money system.

Thanks for your contributions.

If you don't force people to use it, won't this happen:

1. Get free money from Galuel.
2. Sell it, if it is worth anything at all.
3. Put it somewhere where it won't be debased by 5% per year, like bitcoin.

Regarding the symmetry point, I can see how symmetry in time might be ideal or pleasing, but the only way to start something is to break symmetry. Even your system is unfair to people who died in 1980. They got none at all.

[agaumoney]

Equal has many different aspect. Equal in respect of rights, can include equal in respect of the right to evaluate what is value and what it is not.

Agreed.  And that is the end of the agreement.

What you call rights I evaluate to negative value and will not participate in such a system.

By definition those rights must be forced on the participants by the system.  As no individual has the right to force such on another individual, then no collection of individuals and thus no system has that right.  Your proposed system is a violation of rights, not a guarantor of rights.

Therefore, where such a system becomes apparent to me, I will fight against and attempt to destroy such system or the aspects of such system which attempt to extort any such so-called rights.

[agaumoney]

The core of the argument that new comers are "owed" something simply because they are new.  So the question becomes "who" owes them a share of the bitcoin stock.

Exactly.

I arrived in the San Francisco Bay area in 1964..  It seems I was a newcomer to the gold rush and I missed out.

Who is going to pay up and give this newcomer my share of the gold?

[Galuel]

If you don't force people to use it, won't this happen:

1. Get free money from Galuel.
2. Sell it, if it is worth anything at all.
3. Put it somewhere where it won't be debased by 5% per year, like bitcoin.

Of course you're right, this can happen. Someone can go into the system, spend his part of created money, and not giving back something.

It is yet the case in real life lot of people receive more apparently than they give (ill people, young people, not honest people etc...).

It's the risk of the system, the same risk like build any society : hope that the association will still be more benefit than staying isolated, starting by giving something to others in exchange of money, is the fundamental risk of any money system.

BitCoin has the same risk. But in fact between the firts ones who will get the fixed 21 million Bitcoins, some will perhaps do quite nothing than keeping his part of created money, and when 21 million will be reached, spend it, and go away.

Regarding the symmetry point, I can see how symmetry in time might be ideal or pleasing, but the only way to start something is to break symmetry. Even your system is unfair to people who died in 1980. They got none at all.

You're right but one aspect : we can do nothing for the past, but only for the present and infinite future. This part of time is the only part we can act in.

[FreeMoney]

If you don't force people to use it, won't this happen:

1. Get free money from Galuel.
2. Sell it, if it is worth anything at all.
3. Put it somewhere where it won't be debased by 5% per year, like bitcoin.

Of course you're right, this can happen. Someone can go into the system, spend his part of created money, and not giving back something.

It is yet the case in real life lot of people receive more apparently than they give (ill people, young people, not honest people etc...).

It's the risk of the system, the same risk like build any society : hope that the association will still be more benefit than staying isolated, starting by giving something to others in exchange of money, is the fundamental risk of any money system.

BitCoin has the same risk. But in fact between the firts ones who will get the fixed 21 million Bitcoins, some will perhaps do quite nothing than keeping his part of created money, and when 21 million will be reached, spend it, and go away.

I think that you are not understanding Bitcoin. It is not possible to get coins for free. You must do computational work which helps the system to be secure in order to get them.

Also the coins will not stop being created for over 120 years.

Yes, people will take things sometimes that they have not earned, why would you build a system specifically to benefit these people and harm those who are producing? Do you not think this will cause the producers to stay away? They will not stay away because they do not want to help people, they will stay away because they want to chose who to help.

Giving coins to everyone every year has a practical problem also. How do you ensure that different people are actually different people? Will you set up a bureaucracy of identification? I suppose they will be paid with new coins as well? And perhaps an agency to police them, since they may abuse the power of creating money. Being important and powerful people they ought be selected democratically no? Alas, elections are not free.

You should read about bitcoin and consider all that it accomplishes with no central point of failure or control. And also think of the fairness of everyone getting value for value provided. And the goodness of then being able to choose whom to help with that value, themselves, family, friends, or strangers.

[Galuel]

Giving coins to everyone every year has a practical problem also. How do you ensure that different people are actually different people?

I said earlier that I agree with that point, it's a problem to understand. Cooptation is a solution.

In any case confidence is the key of all society and money system, it's impossible to do anything without confidence.

If you don't trust human being you will have problems in whatever you want to do.

You should read about bitcoin and consider all that it accomplishes with no central point of failure or control.

I said also in my firt post here I am enthousiast about BitCoin tool as a non-centralised P2P encrypted money system, we yet started such an idea here under the name of "liquidbank"...

And also think of the fairness of everyone getting value for value provided.

A specific value, which in my point of view is not a "value", and in any case money should not be backed by any particular value, and as it is said in BitCoin Site itself, which is great think I share :

Where does the value of Bitcoin stem from? What backs up Bitcoin?

Bitcoin has value because it is accepted as payment by many. The initial market value was achieved when people speculated, that because of its properties, the currency would be accepted by others later on.

... In a sense, you could say that Bitcoin is "backed up" by the price tags of merchants and currency exchangers – a price tag is a promise to exchange goods for a specified amount of currency.

Nothing else and it is fair. No one should impose any specific "value" to others, and we can share a common money if it's way of creation is fair concerning all specific definition of what is value or not by all the member, that is to say, created on every member present, and future.

In my point of view Bitcoin is quite the perfect tool to developp faire money it only miss the definition of individuals as real "value" of economic system, and time-space symetry in money creation.

But the tool himself is very great, money system is a collective agreement independant of the tool to manage it.

[kiba]

In my point of view Bitcoin is quite the perfect tool to developp faire money it only miss the definition of individuals as real "value" of economic system, and time-space symetry in money creation.

I don't know what you're talking about. Money is entirely a human invention and is used and valued by humans.

[NewLibertyStandard]

Galuel, I just wanted to thank you publicly for the very interesting information you provided.

*Note* To everyone who disagrees, read if you'd like, but please don't reply to this specific message. I'm already familiar with your perspective and so is everyone else. I get it, this is wrong and that is wrong. If you point it all out, I won't be able to help but to read what you have to say, but I'm really not interested, so please save us both the time. Thanks! (...I hope.)

The current principle of Bitcoin is to distribute the currency as fairly as possible in as short a time as is possible. Under the current system, priority is given to establishing a long term currency which will eventually have zero inflation. The unevenness of distribution is simply a necessary evil to arrive at the end goal as quickly as possible.

Before reading your suggestion, I preferred the idea of having the amount of bitcoins stay the same forever. Even though it seems very different than the current system, it's actually very similar since the percentage rate of increase of currency is decreasing in both cases. It's just happens much more slowly than the current implementation.

Because of the design choice of Bitcoin, it tends to disproportionately attract people who prefer the current design and goals of Bitcoin. Please don't take their replies personally. For most of them, Bitcoin very effectively achieves the goals that they're interested in, so suggesting a design change which is completely opposite to what they desire is very undesirable from their prospective.

In the current implementation, inflation starts at an extremely high rate and falls quite quickly with time. The first block creates ฿50 and then within ten minutes there is 100% inflation when the second ฿50 is created. Likewise the second week, the second month and the second year each have 100% inflation over the first week, month and year respectfully. Of course all this time the daily inflation rate is dropping at a constant rate. But after roughly the fourth year, and every subsequent four years, the rate of decrease drops dramatically. As I was saying two paragraphs ago, before reading your suggestion, I preferred the steadiness of having the same amount of bitcoins awarded forever because it is more fair and because the stability of it seemed like more elegant of a solution. But it bugged me that the rate of inflation would constantly be curving from very high at the beginning, to extremely low the more time passed. But after reading a bit about your suggestion from a few different sources, I see why it was bugging me. What I really prefer is a constant rate of inflation, and possibly to have that rate modified by difficulty of generating a verified block, which is roughly representative of population. The current rate of inflation is WAY higher than 5% because the current total amount of bitcoins is so low in comparison to how many bitcoins are generated every ten minutes. Having a constant yearly inflation rate of 5% or so really wouldn't be all that dramatic. You'd have to distribute at a much higher rate at the beginning because the effective rate for 10 minute intervals on 5% annual percentage rate when there's little to no money distributed to begin with would not work. But after some base goal is achieved, it would hardly be noticeable. If you started by distributing 50 packs of currency like Bitcoin now, the only difference you'd see is that an extremely small fraction of a bitcoin would be added to the amount of bitcoins awarded for generating a block of bitcoins. But you'd still have the same chance of winning that extra currency by generating a block. And just because the rate of increase/inflation would be constant, doesn't necessarily mean that the value would go down. I mean, look at Bitcoin right now, the rate of increase/inflation is extremely high, yet the price of bitcoins skyrocketed when demand increased suddenly.

Anyway, I could go on, but I've already rambled for too long. I just wanted to let you know that you got through to at least one person here. Hahaha!

[dwdollar]

So you have a theory of distribution and need a currency to implement it?  I suppose a Bitcoin-like currency could be modified to behave in this manner.  If I understand correctly, Universal Dividend is like social security or welfare, but for every citizen and built directly into the currency instead of being levied by taxes.  In that regard, I see this as a noble effort.  I'd rather the wealth generated by money creation be spread around instead of benefiting a small elite class (like it is now).

There are some problems though...

Short of a revolution, you will not get any government to adopt this system.  Like a bunch of drug junkies, governments are now dependent on the central banking system.  You're only hope is to create a private currency.  A modified Bitcoin-like currency could be a solution.

The Bitcoin Project is trying to create an electronic gold standard.  Universal Dividend is really at odds with that.  It is experimenting with socialism.

[Galuel]

Galuel, I just wanted to thank you publicly for the very interesting information you provided

Thanks. I read your post, and would like to propose some more points to think about.

- Not think about inflation rate as a global information because starting money creation is infinite rate of inflation, but think about inflation PER INDIVIDUAL member in the time, and over life expectancy. When a people die how much money will he have earn from money creation, can we compare with next generation people will own ?

So think money as a RELATIVE power of exchange between individuals in time, and what can they expect to use thru the creation system (and about the exchange system it's part of their own choices, but the creation system is part of present and future members choice as a collectity agreement).

- I understand generating money thru blocks wich is part of the collective security system of exchanges. So perhaps it could be interesting to think in a mix, where generating blocks create the same relative individual money in time, and not an arbitrary changing (in fact deflation rate) relative money creation. By members running an individual node, and not as much nodes as they can.

In any case, my purpose is NOT to incite BitCoin to change his money system. My purpose is only exchange ideas, and propose to think Universal Dividende because I thought a lot on it, and I'm personnaly as many people I talked with it's the only system which respect the changing point of view about value, of future generations of human beings, fundamental, and universal part of any economic system (there's nothing else as universal than individual human being in any economic system).

And we think in France BitCoin a great tool corresponding to a Universal Dividend System. So we think about a fork implementation for it.

[Gavin Andresen]

So you have a theory of distribution and need a currency to implement it?  I suppose a Bitcoin-like currency could be modified to behave in this manner.

I see two fundamental problems with using a Bitcoin-like system to implement a Universal-Dividend-like system:

1. How does the system identify "individuals" ?   If you've got a completely automated way of doing that I really want to know about it!  freebitcoins.appspot.com could really use a foolproof system for identifying individuals.

2. If everybody gets a dividend, why would anybody bother running a block-generating node?  What is the incentive for doing the work needed to support the system?

[Galuel]

Short of a revolution, you will not get any government to adopt this system.  Like a bunch of drug junkies, governments are now dependent on the central banking system.  You're only hope is to create a private currency.  A modified Bitcoin-like currency could be a solution.

Yes I agree with that opinion.

The Bitcoin Project is trying to create an electronic gold standard.  Universal Dividend is really at odds with that.  It is experimenting with socialism.

No I'm deeply liberal and want everyone to be able to be reachest, but without taking advantage on creating money, and would like a universal money progressively adopted in space and in time. It takes long time for a money to be adopted, and it's in large part because of it's design which give it universally usable in every part, at any moment, for all exchanges.

If you create a money for a restricted amount of people, whatever it is, even gold, it won't be universally usable for exchanges, and so others money system will compete, and universality goal will never acheive.

If you think in an ethic, symetrical creation system of money, potentially present at minima in all parts, in all times, the goal of universality is possible to acheive, and using that money where and want you want possible, respecting all individuals by assuring a progressive, low, and symetrical way of creation.

[Galuel]

1. How does the system identify "individuals" ?   If you've got a completely automated way of doing that I really want to know about it!  freebitcoins.appspot.com could really use a foolproof system for identifying individuals.

Progressive Cooptation can be a solution (everyone give agreement and when a certain number of votes is ok, the new member come in).

Any other solution is welcome to improve this.

(NB : when Europe includes countries in Euro System it's a cooptation based on confidence between central powers, not citizens choice, but governments are elected so...).

2. If everybody gets a dividend, why would anybody bother running a block-generating node?  What is the incentive for doing the work needed to support the system?

Yes I posted earlier about it. A solution could be to have two conditions to have the dividend :

1) be an individual human being coopted.
2) Run Block generation code to improve security system

Could be ok for me. Block generation could be the minimum to do to be part of the money system, and so Dividend could depends on it.