What makes a currency meaningful?

[yldouright]

The cryptocoin world has a serious philosophical question it needs to address and that is the subject above. We have seen throughout history that inequitable distributions of wealth or power always results in oppression of some form or another. This is a natural consequence of the territorial nature in the human species so if we plan to fix anything with cryptocoin, we should not leave out the opportunity to discourage the aspect of human nature which is at the root of all the harm in the first place. If we don't, we just exchange one evil for another. How so? Let's assume bitcoin begins to be accepted as a store of value but its distribution and access is poor. Without it being in the hands of the vast majority, that value will either become irrelevant over time or another source of domination. It will fail to achieve its main purpose of a fluid currency with either scenario. Sadly, this argument applies to just about all the cryptocurrencies so what is a better solution? I don't have an answer but because I've pondered this issue longer than most, I know the direction we need to take and that is why I am introducing this thread with the hope that the more thoughtful and altruistic among you will participate. We need a coin that has disincentives for dominant mass accumulation and we need a coin that is accessible to all. These both can be achieved in many ways and this thread is designed to put these suggestions forward for discussion.

[1715232550]

1715232550

[1715232550]

1715232550

[1715232550]

1715232550

[jaysabi]

It sounds like you're asking for things that aren't possible: for a currency that has widely acknowledged value but also one in which the accumulation of it isn't possible by the wealthy. If your premise is that currencies typically allow for oppression of the poor, and you want bitcoin to become a currency, it too will allow for oppression of the poor. Bitcoin doesn't solve the fundamental problem of the human race: scarcity of resources. Scarcity of resources is what drives greed, not currency. Currencies are just a representation of it and a way to facilitate trade, and it doesn't matter if it's denominated in USD, Euros, Pounds, or Bitcoins. Bitcoin will not end scarcity, so there will always be rich and poor, even with bitcoin. But solving that problem wasn't the intent of bitcoin either. I don't know where the concept came from, but the problem bitcoin was supposed to solve was not inequitable distributions of wealth; it was the necessity of a central authority (which may abuse its power) in the currency creation process. Any ideals you're assigning to bitcoin outside of that single one aren't innate to bitcoin, and they aren't necessarily warranted.

[RodeoX]

I liked your post. But I don't think cryptocoins are going to address human greed. The only way to discourage hoarding of anything is to devalue it. Doing that destroys it's utility and will keep anyone from using it.

The big difference with something like bitcoin is not that it will keep the greedy away, but they must compete equally with you. Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money. The poor are expected to work and create the real value that the rich are cashing in on.

[zetaray]

A currency is a medium of exchange, not an income redistribution tool. Cryptos need electricity to send and receive. Many parts of the 3rd world do not have electricity easily available. So, cryptos will not solve poverty or inequality.

[BitMos]

hashing = "mining"   "sharing" = mining   "loving" = mining   wasting = mining   living = mining   as long as it's not: work makes you free  , I think I can adapt.

A currency is a medium of exchange, not an income redistribution tool. Cryptos need electricity to send and receive. Many parts of the 3rd world do not have electricity easily available. So, cryptos will not solve poverty or inequality.

A currency shouldn't at least not be a mean of extraction. I don't think that electricity per se is the problem, who doesn't want an iphoneclone... a mini solar panel and you are good to go... machine build...

People willingly give up their power. It doesn't matter how many advancements are made, this will continue to happen. They seem to want to avoid the responsibility that comes with having any power at all. Most will happily trade their power for a false sense of security.

The best we can do is find ways to render the consolidation of power irrelevant to the responsible individual.

As long as it has value, a currency will be gathered into the hands of a few. A currency without value is pointless.

Do you think it can be trained? Or structurally engineered? How they will try to consolidated, aggressive to the point that BTC and clones had to come. Their is only value in trust in the men next to you, carrying the arms needed to defeat your opponents, in case such ones, doesn't want to discuss and solve in a consensual way your problems (and his as of you standing in arms before him, otherwise he would laugh...). It's called plantation transition, once the salve rise, necessarily certain formers masters will have to readjust to the new paradigm. The real question is what can they keep. Some argue that their life is already too much due to the damage inflicted. I couldn't agree more.

I liked your post. But I don't think cryptocoins are going to address human greed. The only way to discourage hoarding of anything is to devalue it. Doing that destroys it's utility and will keep anyone from using it.

The big difference with something like bitcoin is not that it will keep the greedy away, but they must compete equally with you. Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money. The poor are expected to work and create the real value that the rich are cashing in on.

woooh, I like this spirit of realism. I could just add that serving as cannon folders and prostitutes is the cherry-icing on the cake (depending on the taste). Greed ain't a sin, wanting more cake because you are hungry while the others are on diet ( ) could be even describe as helping.

It sounds like you're asking for things that aren't possible: for a currency that has widely acknowledged value but also one in which the accumulation of it isn't possible by the wealthy. If your premise is that currencies typically allow for oppression of the poor, and you want bitcoin to become a currency, it too will allow for oppression of the poor. Bitcoin doesn't solve the fundamental problem of the human race: scarcity of resources. Scarcity of resources is what drives greed, not currency. Currencies are just a representation of it and a way to facilitate trade, and it doesn't matter if it's denominated in USD, Euros, Pounds, or Bitcoins. Bitcoin will not end scarcity, so there will always be rich and poor, even with bitcoin. But solving that problem wasn't the intent of bitcoin either. I don't know where the concept came from, but the problem bitcoin was supposed to solve was not inequitable distributions of wealth; it was the necessity of a central authority (which may abuse its power) in the currency creation process. Any ideals you're assigning to bitcoin outside of that single one aren't innate to bitcoin, and they aren't necessarily warranted.

scarcity of resources = stress; life = how do you cope with this stress, becoming a sub-animal or a human. don't wait, time is ticking for both as certain. Greed is allowed to grow like poverty. It's a political choices, that has many advantages for sub-animals in terms of reproduction and others earthly advantages. Very common among the human specie. Does it have DNA markers, I don't believe so, it's more from the spirit than the flesh, sadly?

The cryptocoin world has a serious philosophical question it needs to address and that is the subject above. We have seen throughout history that inequitable distributions of wealth or power always results in oppression of some form or another. This is a natural consequence of the territorial nature in the human species so if we plan to fix anything with cryptocoin, we should not leave out the opportunity to discourage the aspect of human nature which is at the root of all the harm in the first place. If we don't, we just exchange one evil for another. How so? Let's assume bitcoin begins to be accepted as a store of value but its distribution and access is poor. Without it being in the hands of the vast majority, that value will either become irrelevant over time or another source of domination. It will fail to achieve its main purpose of a fluid currency with either scenario. Sadly, this argument applies to just about all the cryptocurrencies so what is a better solution? I don't have an answer but because I've pondered this issue longer than most, I know the direction we need to take and that is why I am introducing this thread with the hope that the more thoughtful and altruistic among you will participate. We need a coin that has disincentives for dominant mass accumulation and we need a coin that is accessible to all. These both can be achieved in many ways and this thread is designed to put these suggestions forward for discussion.

Always? never have been the men whose pockets have been the fullest the kindest? there must be something going on here... Maybe only thieves and liars can prosper in the world of sauron? Happily pockets of the dead are always emptied, sooner or later. But it doesn't help in your fast electronic societies.

I think that we don't need one coin, but as many until maximal "efficiency" is reached in the size of each group. Certain groups converging towards certain conflicting interest will have to resort to violence to attempt to go trough the "iron wall" or die trying.

Thank you for your post it's quite rare to read such beautiful phrase as evil swapping, I thank you very much to have dared to express your opinions, that reflect a sure and certain comprehension of "money" as it's called in the real estate game called monopoly.

A currency is meaningful once it's used further - help - foster the type of future you want your children to live in. Otherwise it's just a scam attempt by your opponents to conquer your land, or worst.

[jaysabi]

Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money.

The point of identifying who a "qualified investor" is isn't to exclude poor people from investments, it's about identifying a situation where there are no investors the SEC needs to protect. There are certain securities or transactions that don't need to be registered if they deal with only qualified investors. The point is to identify a transaction that doesn't need SEC oversight or registration since a "qualified" investor is deemed to have the experience or resources at his disposal to figure out for himself if the deal is legitimate or or not. It's true the SEC equates financial sophistication with wealth or level of income, but that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable correlation to me. The question comes down to financial sophistication, and the SEC has decided that the rich are more financially sophisticated than the poor, and are able to better understand the risks of investing in an unregistered security, which is riskier than a registered security. To a lesser extent, this identifies situations where the government doesn't need to get involved so it can lessen its regulatory burden, but it's mostly about situations where the government doesn't have to oversee or register the securities because everyone involved can take care of themselves.

[BADecker]

What makes a currency meaningful? Honesty. Privacy. Freedom to use it to grow and accumulate by everyone.

In other words, a currency is a commodity that makes life easier for those who use it. Life gets easier for the honest, naive people. Life gets easier for the crooks.

Making currency meaningful isn't about currency. It's about freedom and honesty... lifestyle among the people.

For example, you hear the preaching of the politicians. So, you vote them into office. Then, they do whatever they want, lie through their teeth, etc. But you keep on believing them. Suckers!

The reason Bitcoin might have success is that it is honest in a way that is difficult to corrupt. The reason Bitcoin might fail is the same one that the whole country fails by. People would rather believe the corrupt government and media, to their own demise, than use something private and honest like Bitcoin.

Somebody might say, But Bitcoin can be used for all kinds of corruption. Fiat currency is corruption incarnate the way it is being used around the world by the big banks and the governments.

[dank]

The absence of currency.

[BitMos]

What makes a currency meaningful? Honesty. Privacy. Freedom to use it to grow and accumulate by everyone.

In other words, a currency is a commodity that makes life easier for those who use it. Life gets easier for the honest, naive people. Life gets easier for the crooks.

Making currency meaningful isn't about currency. It's about freedom and honesty... lifestyle among the people.

For example, you hear the preaching of the politicians. So, you vote them into office. Then, they do whatever they want, lie through their teeth, etc. But you keep on believing them. Suckers!

The reason Bitcoin might have success is that it is honest in a way that is difficult to corrupt. The reason Bitcoin might fail is the same one that the whole country fails by. People would rather believe the corrupt government and media, to their own demise, than use something private and honest like Bitcoin.

Somebody might say, But Bitcoin can be used for all kinds of corruption. Fiat currency is corruption incarnate the way it is being used around the world by the big banks and the governments.

It's a real pleasure to read you. Thank you. I permitted myself to highlight a certain passage that I liked particularly. Do you think that I could rephrase it by shafting the wheat from the weed? Was Christians persecution about people trying to be righteous (who said they succeed;)), who only wanted to do business among themselves, the crooks would be pissed off, as any medium of exchange that they may used may get voided in a sec, even more with the backing of the imperial guard... sad than even the prospect of a full success in any transformation of currency - society may already be to late for any real change... toxicity. But I think it's still cool to try what ever the results, the potential rewards outweight so much the potential risk, that frankly there isn't many others options... what's cooler is that those options are evolving very fast...

[yldouright]

dank
That is what Socrates and others thought so you're in good company but baby steps first.

BADecker
I concur with the ideals of your reply but such broad guidelines are meaningless without mechanisms to check those freedoms before they become freedoms to oppress. I would add the following refinements:
The accumulation should be limited in some way by a finite time frame so as to discourage any degradation of monetary velocity and the accumulation should be subject to a boundary for the same reason. In a sense, bitcoin already has this in the form of the 50% paradox but I suggest this could be made a flexible barrier instead of a finite failure wall. The politicians for the most part are victims of the monied interest and only a small minority are direct agents. The vast majority of democratically elected leaders in most countries are quite clueless or of insufficient metal to represent their voters will. Sadly, most sovereign nations are subject to the will of a dark monarchy and have yet to become aware of this reality. The elected leaders do as they are told and sign what is before them by suggestion of lobbyists and seated peers without due consideration of how their consituents will be effected. What most cryptocurrencies have above other forms of currency is a clearer audit trail and a greater potential for humane and equitable use but only if we begin to consider these in their design.


jaysabi
Yes and the whole "know your client" impetus has been perverted into something much more insidious but that is for another discussion. As for what is possible, I am much more optimisitic than you.

Bitmos

A currency shouldn't at least not be a mean of extraction.

You have succinctly summed up the point I am making. Ghandi wisely said, "There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for their greed". There comes a point where accumulation goes past the point of any sane requirement of safety and this is what needs to be indoctinated for us to evolve and very possibly to survive as a species.

zetaray
I understand you but isn't it time to aspire for something more?

Holliday
Yes, people are in despair and have acquired a systemic sense of futility so your observation should not surprise you. The bar of the "American Dream" has been lowered to include everyone at the expense of the middle class. Without any middle or upper middle class, the probability of a competitor to the entrenched class arising from the populace decreases to insignificance and this degrades the well being of all those who must then pay the remaining oligarchs. Things have degraded even worse than this. Even if you come up with something world changing you will never get it to market. See Stanley Meyer.

RodeoX
I think they can be made to do so and that is what this discussion is aimed at.

[username18333]

Money serves to regulate consumption and, thus, comprises failings thereabout.

[El Emperador]

we need a coin that is accessible to all.

Bitcoin can't be accessible to all, because - to exploit all its potential - people need to use internet and large areas in the world aren't covered by Internet.
Even if one day all the world will be covered by Internet connections, there may be people who don't like to use Internet or aren't able to use it.

[RodeoX]

Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money.

The point of identifying who a "qualified investor" is isn't to exclude poor people from investments, it's about identifying a situation where there are no investors the SEC needs to protect. There are certain securities or transactions that don't need to be registered if they deal with only qualified investors. The point is to identify a transaction that doesn't need SEC oversight or registration since a "qualified" investor is deemed to have the experience or resources at his disposal to figure out for himself if the deal is legitimate or or not. It's true the SEC equates financial sophistication with wealth or level of income, but that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable correlation to me. The question comes down to financial sophistication, and the SEC has decided that the rich are more financially sophisticated than the poor, and are able to better understand the risks of investing in an unregistered security, which is riskier than a registered security. To a lesser extent, this identifies situations where the government doesn't need to get involved so it can lessen its regulatory burden, but it's mostly about situations where the government doesn't have to oversee or register the securities because everyone involved can take care of themselves.

I see what your saying but the implication that having wealth equals financial knowledge is false. If one were born mentally challenged but a millionaire he/she would qualify while another person with an advanced degree in economics will not qualify if they are not rich. The only reason why this law exists is to protect the wealthy from normal people entering into investments.
Why for example can't a normal person invest $500 in a startup? Even if their poor stupid self invests unwisely, they wont go broke. And there is nothing to keep a wealthy person from investing in a ridiculously bad option. It is not about protecting anyone. It is about the fact that the wealthy do not work for a living, they invest. If everyone could do that then the rich would face competition from the people who are supposed to be busy making them money. 

[yldouright]

RodeoX

If everyone could do that then the rich would face competition from the people who are supposed to be busy making them money.

Exactly! When there are more competitors for labor the probability of gainful employment rises and so does social mobility (aka, freedom).

El Emperador
This is becoming less true daily and could change immediately with a few pen strokes.

username18333
Currency can not regulate consumption when it is unregulated. Where is your say in how much money is created to circulate? With the power to create currency in the hands of so few, all asset prices can be dictated and any asset can be controlled. The problem with central banks is one big part of all we need to address. President JFK was the last to try and Lincoln before him had partially succeeded with his greenbacks. Jackson was the only past leader to take them on and win. If his soul is bearing witness to the state of affairs today, he is suffering.

[username18333]

. . .

username18333[:]

Money serves to regulate consumption and, thus, comprises failings thereabout.

Currency can not regulate consumption when it is unregulated. Where is your say in how much money is created to circulate? With the power to create currency in the hands of so few, all asset prices can be dictated and any asset can be controlled. The problem with central banks is one big part of all we need to address. President JFK was the last to try and Lincoln before him had partially succeeded with his greenbacks. Jackson was the only past leader to take them on and win. If his soul is bearing witness to the state of affairs today, he is suffering.

. . .

Writcoin™ features Bitcoin hard-fork requests such as exclusive use of both pay-to-script-hash within all [non-data] transaction outputs and fixed-width, 64-bit unsigned integers in storing block time and a Dutch 320-bit cryptographic hash function, RTR0. Writcoin also features Proof-of-Wait™ (Proof-of-Work based on transaction tree Merkle roots instead of block header message digests) and automatic deficit spending (that is to say, a transactions output value may exceed its input value).

Writcoin requires coinbase transactions to have no inputs and only one, unspendable output; however, Writcoin accepts coinbase transactions that did not originate within a block. Writcoin also requires clients to proxy through Tor to connect to its imperial seed node and a standard C++ library with support for C++11.

. . .

(Emphasis added.)

Writcoin™ allows the value of its transaction outputs to exceed their inputs. Writcoin, thus, democratizes money creation unto anarchy and places the keys to the kingdom within the hands of the kingdom itself.

[jkoil]

The cryptocoin world has a serious philosophical question it needs to address and that is the subject above. We have seen throughout history that inequitable distributions of wealth or power always results in oppression of some form or another. This is a natural consequence of the territorial nature in the human species so if we plan to fix anything with cryptocoin, we should not leave out the opportunity to discourage the aspect of human nature which is at the root of all the harm in the first place. If we don't, we just exchange one evil for another. How so? Let's assume bitcoin begins to be accepted as a store of value but its distribution and access is poor. Without it being in the hands of the vast majority, that value will either become irrelevant over time or another source of domination. It will fail to achieve its main purpose of a fluid currency with either scenario. Sadly, this argument applies to just about all the cryptocurrencies so what is a better solution? I don't have an answer but because I've pondered this issue longer than most, I know the direction we need to take and that is why I am introducing this thread with the hope that the more thoughtful and altruistic among you will participate. We need a coin that has disincentives for dominant mass accumulation and we need a coin that is accessible to all. These both can be achieved in many ways and this thread is designed to put these suggestions forward for discussion.

That Bitcoin's future is probably true. It cannot become a currency of all. It is owned by too few people and its current value is too high for being able to improve its distribution - before other currencies go over it.

[yldouright]

jkoil
I'm glad you see it the same way. Read below and tell me what you think.

username18333
I looked into Writcoin and it has some interesting features but its distribution and other characteristics make it less than ideal. We need to develop something new but not launch it until there is true mass participation. We need a very long hype period where just about everyone knows about it before it is launched. Any people without steady access to computers at the time of launch will be allowed to register to participate via email where they can be assigned to a philanthropic benefit mining pool. Information about all holders of this coin will be in a database encrypted by all participating computers. Funding for this pool and its maintenace will be assigned to a vote of all participants. There will be an event within the next few years that will make people eager for an alternative currency and this coin should be ready for launch when this happens. As I understand it, there is already a Scottish enterprise which has a coin that provides a document encryption protection scheme so we have a model to follow or a platform to develop upon.

[jaysabi]

Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money.

The point of identifying who a "qualified investor" is isn't to exclude poor people from investments, it's about identifying a situation where there are no investors the SEC needs to protect. There are certain securities or transactions that don't need to be registered if they deal with only qualified investors. The point is to identify a transaction that doesn't need SEC oversight or registration since a "qualified" investor is deemed to have the experience or resources at his disposal to figure out for himself if the deal is legitimate or or not. It's true the SEC equates financial sophistication with wealth or level of income, but that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable correlation to me. The question comes down to financial sophistication, and the SEC has decided that the rich are more financially sophisticated than the poor, and are able to better understand the risks of investing in an unregistered security, which is riskier than a registered security. To a lesser extent, this identifies situations where the government doesn't need to get involved so it can lessen its regulatory burden, but it's mostly about situations where the government doesn't have to oversee or register the securities because everyone involved can take care of themselves.

I see what your saying but the implication that having wealth equals financial knowledge is false. If one were born mentally challenged but a millionaire he/she would qualify while another person with an advanced degree in economics will not qualify if they are not rich. The only reason why this law exists is to protect the wealthy from normal people entering into investments.
Why for example can't a normal person invest $500 in a startup? Even if their poor stupid self invests unwisely, they wont go broke. And there is nothing to keep a wealthy person from investing in a ridiculously bad option. It is not about protecting anyone. It is about the fact that the wealthy do not work for a living, they invest. If everyone could do that then the rich would face competition from the people who are supposed to be busy making them money.  

I understand your first point, and I agree that wealth is not the same as financial knowledge. It's just the easiest way to draw the line. I disagree with the intent of the rule though. It's not to protect the rich, it's to protect the not rich. The reason the SEC is necessary is because people take advantage of other people. The SEC regulates investments to hold accountable people who would defraud investors. The reason they don't let the non-rich invest in the riskiest types of securities is they can least afford it if the venture fails, and far, FAR more of them fail than not.

It would be one thing if people accepted responsibility for themselves when they invest in a company that goes bust, but they don't. The public has demanded "protection" from people who would structure deals in a way so as to take advantage of the financially less sophisticated, so the SEC has arbitrarily decided that level of wealth equals sophistication. From the SEC's perspective, alhough I disagree with the method of implementation, I agree with the intent of the rule, which is to keep less sophisticated people from biting off more than they can chew or being taken advantage of. From the perspective of personal responsibility and freedom, I disagree with the rule on principal. I think people should be free to invest in whatever they want. With that type of system though, the instances of fraud will be much higher. It's just a question of whether the trade off is worth it.

[Einsteinium News]

Utility
is the key to cryptocurrency success.

[Einsteinium News]

The cryptocoin world has a serious philosophical question it needs to address and that is the subject above. We have seen throughout history that inequitable distributions of wealth or power always results in oppression of some form or another. This is a natural consequence of the territorial nature in the human species so if we plan to fix anything with cryptocoin, we should not leave out the opportunity to discourage the aspect of human nature which is at the root of all the harm in the first place. If we don't, we just exchange one evil for another. How so? Let's assume bitcoin begins to be accepted as a store of value but its distribution and access is poor. Without it being in the hands of the vast majority, that value will either become irrelevant over time or another source of domination. It will fail to achieve its main purpose of a fluid currency with either scenario. Sadly, this argument applies to just about all the cryptocurrencies so what is a better solution? I don't have an answer but because I've pondered this issue longer than most, I know the direction we need to take and that is why I am introducing this thread with the hope that the more thoughtful and altruistic among you will participate. We need a coin that has disincentives for dominant mass accumulation and we need a coin that is accessible to all. These both can be achieved in many ways and this thread is designed to put these suggestions forward for discussion.

I know of one coin [I won't mention the name] that is extremely 'altruistic', accessible to all, and has an extremely low buy-in price (3sat).   

The coin supply is unlimited, anytime you do something good you get an arbitrary amount of coin.  In the absence of actual, or at least perceived scarcity the true value will plummet.