[ANN] Freicoin: demurrage crypto-currency from the Occupy movement (crowdfund)

[Explodicle]

Yea, I really dislike the idea of a "foundation" in both this currency and devcoin (I think? If I'm understanding it right that is...)

Who's to say the foundation doesn't just cashout all of their freicoins into another currency?

You are. Foundation coins will only be spent as part of a community vetted process.  You can join the conversation at freicoin.org.

I spoke out against centralization earlier in the project and my voice was drowned out by louder voices in favor. It's like arguing about a Wikipedia article.

If you really like Freicoin EXCEPT for the foundation, you'll have an easier time just forking it. If I wanted to argue about how my own money was spent on my behalf, I'd go to city hall.

[1714595622]

1714595622

[1714595622]

1714595622

[1714595622]

1714595622

[1714595622]

1714595622

[raubaut]

You've based it on Bitcoin technology. Is this a competitor to Bitcoin?

Absolutely not! The two serve quite different purposes. The properties of Bitcoin make it analogous to precious commodities like gold or silver, and it will always function as a useful store of value. Freicoin, on the other hand, is meant to be used as a medium of exchange only, kept on hand just long enough to provide a cash-flow buffer. The demurrage fee encourages recipients of Freicoin to put their money to use as soon as possible in an exchange (even by buying bitcoins, for example), whereas the deflationary nature of Bitcoin rewards hoarding and serves a different purpose as a long-term store of value.

Can someone explain why someone would want to convert BTC to FRC in order to exchange?  What is the added value of using FRC as an exchange currency?

[Bicknellski]

Yea, I really dislike the idea of a "foundation" in both this currency and devcoin (I think? If I'm understanding it right that is...)

Who's to say the foundation doesn't just cashout all of their freicoins into another currency?

You are. Foundation coins will only be spent as part of a community vetted process.  You can join the conversation at freicoin.org.

I spoke out against centralization earlier in the project and my voice was drowned out by louder voices in favor. It's like arguing about a Wikipedia article.

If you really like Freicoin EXCEPT for the foundation, you'll have an easier time just forking it. If I wanted to argue about how my own money was spent on my behalf, I'd go to city hall.

They won't be "spent" in that manner at all. Your money? Either you mine and accept it or don't mine it. Right?

The work needed now is not forking it is developing a democratic means for the disbursement of the foundation funds in the form of prizes and grants to help jump start the use of Freicoin with things like Freiescrow... or Freibay trade sites etc. What is great about this fund is that it will be used, it will not be spent on the foundation memebers it will go to help develop Freicoin. That is something as a Freicoin user I support. Having put some ideas forward as well as putting in my own grant proposal I am hopeful we see a foundation actually form soon and form so that we the users have direct influence in what gets funded.  Rather than simply hating on the "centralization" you might want to rethink it and look towards a more PARECON model where direct democratic involved may infact help bolster the Freicoin and in the future make miners MORE MONEY... in 3 years hopefully most of the YOUR money will also be dispensed to the projects that we the users agree we need. If you have any ideas for projects post them up.

http://www.freicoin.org/how-to-present-grant-proposals-t146.html

[Bicknellski]

You've based it on Bitcoin technology. Is this a competitor to Bitcoin?

Absolutely not! The two serve quite different purposes. The properties of Bitcoin make it analogous to precious commodities like gold or silver, and it will always function as a useful store of value. Freicoin, on the other hand, is meant to be used as a medium of exchange only, kept on hand just long enough to provide a cash-flow buffer. The demurrage fee encourages recipients of Freicoin to put their money to use as soon as possible in an exchange (even by buying bitcoins, for example), whereas the deflationary nature of Bitcoin rewards hoarding and serves a different purpose as a long-term store of value.

Can someone explain why someone would want to convert BTC to FRC in order to exchange?  What is the added value of using FRC as an exchange currency?

http://www.freicoin.org/market-f8.html

Go here and spend your Freicoin that you mined or earned... traded for or bought.

[Explodicle]

Yea, I really dislike the idea of a "foundation" in both this currency and devcoin (I think? If I'm understanding it right that is...)

Who's to say the foundation doesn't just cashout all of their freicoins into another currency?

You are. Foundation coins will only be spent as part of a community vetted process.  You can join the conversation at freicoin.org.

I spoke out against centralization earlier in the project and my voice was drowned out by louder voices in favor. It's like arguing about a Wikipedia article.

If you really like Freicoin EXCEPT for the foundation, you'll have an easier time just forking it. If I wanted to argue about how my own money was spent on my behalf, I'd go to city hall.

They won't be "spent" in that manner at all. Your money? Either you mine and accept it or don't mine it. Right?

The work needed now is not forking it is developing a democratic means for the disbursement of the foundation funds in the form of prizes and grants to help jump start the use of Freicoin with things like Freiescrow... or Freibay trade sites etc. What is great about this fund is that it will be used, it will not be spent on the foundation memebers it will go to help develop Freicoin. That is something as a Freicoin user I support. Having put some ideas forward as well as putting in my own grant proposal I am hopeful we see a foundation actually form soon and form so that we the users have direct influence in what gets funded.  Rather than simply hating on the "centralization" you might want to rethink it and look towards a more PARECON model where direct democratic involved may infact help bolster the Freicoin and in the future make miners MORE MONEY... in 3 years hopefully most of the YOUR money will also be dispensed to the projects that we the users agree we need. If you have any ideas for projects post them up.

http://www.freicoin.org/how-to-present-grant-proposals-t146.html

Why are "spent" and "centralization" in quotes? The foundation will be spending funds which they automatically receive due to centralization.

I'm not simply hating on centralization because I've got a stick up my ass. Centralization creates a huge weak point. Should Freicoin ever threaten the powers that be, they WILL go after that weak point. Once cops/mafia/corporations kick in the door and demand private keys, our votes become meaningless.

And even with perfect security, one does not simply construct a fair voting system. Is it per person or per coin? Condorcet or range voting? Who validates voters? Will you support every language? Do I need government-issued ID? Can I delegate or sell my vote?

Good luck with that.

[Bicknellski]

Luck not needed.

300 Gh/s and profitability at 200%.

Horrible.

Worst case scenario. They can't find an equitable way to dispense the coin. It is all sent to a throw away wallet and volia "DEMURRAGE" to the rescue coins go to the miners.

I think there are way too many naysayers who fail to give real workable alternatives a chance or put in the effort to make sure positive things will happen. FRC is a coin that is different and in "GOOD" way. Check it out. Mine it. Spend it.

Mining is not an equitable way to distribute coin to the majority of people regardless of how theoretically sound it is as a verifiable form of distribution. Unfortunately many people in this community live in a bubble where everyone has a computer, access to the internet and can figure out how to mine. Sorry but that ain't the real world. Sometimes less than perfect or less accountable ways may in fact be better for the entire population. You do have a stick up your ass as most people do when  it comes to the BEAUTY and EFFICACY of the mining model. It is flawed and the continual concentration of mining in fewer hands is the result. I'd rather have a cheap ID card versus a 30K mining rig just to get a ROI after 4 months. Yea real equitable if you have the money to invest. So ya there could be problems yet in the overall picture a foundation could conceivably distribute more coin to more people more equitably than the current system for mining. It is quite possible and given the people involved I dare say it will be fun to watch what develops from this experiment. People have shared wealth for within communities for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no perfect system but I think that at times humanity is quite capable of empathy and honesty, maybe sometimes the tech answer is not always the best answer as it leads to less empathy and there is no need for honesty as the system removes that from the equation... dehumanizing us in the process. 

[Explodicle]

Luck not needed.

300 Gh/s and profitability at 200%.

Horrible.

I'm not doubting Freicoin's profitability for miners. I'm saying you need luck to structure the foundation in such a way that is resistant to corruption.

Worst case scenario. They can't find an equitable way to dispense the coin. It is all sent to a throw away wallet and volia "DEMURRAGE" to the rescue coins go to the miners.

Although completely abandoning the egalitarian distribution you describe would be bad, I think the worst case scenario is even worse:
Freicoin proceeds as planned and does great things early on, using foundation funds to fund the poor and/or useful related projects.
Freicoin adoption grows to include millions of people and thousands of businesses.
Now that it looks attractive, foundation members get a knock on their doors.
Corruption is nearly invisible, and there's no clear line between a good investment and a bad one.
People continue to use Freicoin because of its network effect, and because only 49% of voters are unsatisfied by the foundation.

Just because it's a nonprofit doesn't shield the foundation from the immense incentive to control a monetary system. Conspirators will be sneaky and corruption not obvious to everyone. They'll focus on details most people don't care about, like your choice of voting system or voter verification.

I think there are way too many naysayers who fail to give real workable alternatives a chance or put in the effort to make sure positive things will happen. FRC is a coin that is different and in "GOOD" way. Check it out. Mine it. Spend it.

I think there are too many ayesayers who ignore what I just said about previously getting involved. I even mined a little bit during the beta. I have given Freicoin a fair shot but I was done once everyone else decided to centralize the software.

Mining is not an equitable way to distribute coin to the majority of people regardless of how theoretically sound it is as a verifiable form of distribution. Unfortunately many people in this community live in a bubble where everyone has a computer, access to the internet and can figure out how to mine. Sorry but that ain't the real world. Sometimes less than perfect or less accountable ways may in fact be better for the entire population. You do have a stick up your ass as most people do when  it comes to the BEAUTY and EFFICACY of the mining model. It is flawed and the continual concentration of mining in fewer hands is the result. I'd rather have a cheap ID card versus a 30K mining rig just to get a ROI after 4 months. Yea real equitable if you have the money to invest. So ya there could be problems yet in the overall picture a foundation could conceivably distribute more coin to more people more equitably than the current system for mining. It is quite possible and given the people involved I dare say it will be fun to watch what develops from this experiment. People have shared wealth for within communities for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no perfect system but I think that at times humanity is quite capable of empathy and honesty, maybe sometimes the tech answer is not always the best answer as it leads to less empathy and there is no need for honesty as the system removes that from the equation... dehumanizing us in the process. 

This is pure political ideology. I'm talking about building a robust system against attack, not a wishlist of things we could accomplish if centralization didn't breed corruption.

[jtimon]

Although "the rules" of the foundation are loosely defined in the forums and we
should formalize them, they're changeable, so we're focusing on bringing more
participation from groups that have more experience than us in participative
resource management. The distribution must be completely transparent, the
expenditures of the receiving party must be published.

We have to always keep in mind that the issuing is only a temporal situation, so
the coins will be issued anyway.

The plan B is always there, what's needed is to define the rules to activate it.
In the case of an openly corrupt foundation, it is obvious, but we need to also
define the rules for harder to predict scenarios like the one you've described.
If the task gets too big to be manageable openly, it could be considered that
the bureaucracy apparatus is highly abusable and the p2p price formation of the
currency is unacceptably compromised. The proceeds would be similar to the
anti-corrupt foundation hard fork: a new client is released with a checkpoint
on "the last acceptable block".
It would be a sad incident, because:

1) The fixed supply would take more than 3 years to be reached.

2) More than 20% of the coins would be issued through mining.

Although the foundation is precisely trying to avoid the second, there's many
ways things could go wrong. But it's never too late pray to the p2p goddess as
she forgives. It's never too late to ritually sacrifice kilowatts to the hashing
pyres in order to complete the sacred act of issuing cash. Maybe those ancient
shells needed some lamb blood mark on them to bu issued too. Since creating
value "out of nowhere" is a sin, now we know best way to "destroy" the
outcome of this value creation is by a competitive market that can bring profits
as closer to zero as possible, even if there's no real consumers for the
hash-issuing artificial market in the sense that no one really enjoys having
an over-secured network.
Although cash is an implicit agreement between its users, it's not tolerable to
have an explicit agreement between those same users because that could fail, as
the process is run by humans instead of computers.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but it has been easier for me to write it this way.

I think Jed McCaleb doesn't even think there's any problem at all. These are my
own words, so don't trust me on this and go search in the Ripple forums, but I
would say he thinks something like this for xrp:

It doesn't matter that the giveaways are abused or that we spend the issuance
ourselves, we can fund free software development with cash issuance within a
private company. Once the coins are distributed, there's no practical difference
for a new user between a currency that has been issued "ethically" and one that
hasn't.

And I think he's right, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to manage the
distribution in a transparent and participative way. As said, the hash pyres
are always there waiting for us, but I would be glad if you participated in the
fulfillment of this difficult task. We all know that giving money away is very
hard, that's why we need your help and many more people.
We will need to repeat a hundred times why this can only be made once to most
non-techies and non-austrians (for the fixed supply) who join, because we want
eventual full p2p, but it may result a great way to increase currency adoption.
I don't see why you can't join us and be ready for the cut foundation hard-fork
call when the currency objectives get compromised if that ever happens.

[TheSwede75]

What is 'roughly' the current time to find a block @ 500 MH/S? Is it still 'worth it' to solo mine for FRC?

[maaku]

Difficulty is approx 20k, and is going to increase soon. You can plug that into various mining calculators to see how long it will take.

There's no reason not to throw your hash at p2pool, however, and you can run your own p2pool daemon if you want to avoid the fee.

[Explodicle]

I don't see why you can't join us and be ready for the cut foundation hard-fork
call when the currency objectives get compromised if that ever happens.

There isn't much incentive for the Freicoin developers/foundation to establish a better way to distribute rewards while the current method (you as the gatekeepers) disproportionately favors your interests. You've contrasted centralized distribution of rewards versus cultishly dancing around a sacrificial pyre of mining rewards, but there are other decentralized options besides mining rewards.

A good example is Impaler's PoS voting idea. Coin owners would vote on multiple budgets, and the most approved one would receive the subsidy/demurrage. I can understand your concerns with giving your power to the rich, but:

• They won't stay "rich" indefinitely because of demurrage
• They'll act in the best interests of Freicoin, trying to maximize its value much like shareholders do today
• It's much more secure from coercion than any centralized alternative
• The rich are contributing to the system and exposing themselves to risk by holding those coins
• (IMHO) Freicoin rich people are more altruistic than fiat rich people

And I'm sure there are other ways to decentralize distribution too. Right now you've got a half-finished distribution scheme that puts a lot of power in your own hands; anyone who supports Freicoin right now is saying they trust the foundation enough to give that power up when it's even greater.

[Bicknellski]

What is 'roughly' the current time to find a block @ 500 MH/S? Is it still 'worth it' to solo mine for FRC?

http://1.cr.rs/

Good info right here.... We should reward Joe for his efforts... come on Foundation set up already and start giving some coin to these people who are adding value to FRC by their efforts.


http://www.freicoin.org/frc-foundation-grants-prizes-moving-forward-now-t250.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=182019.0

What should we do next... POST YOUR MILESTONE guides and lets get to the distribution phase already. If you actually CARE about this issue then you have to get involved and provide SOLUTIONS. Not much can get done if you simply bitch and moan about the inequity. Time to get on board and get some traction on this and have a foundation formed and distributing some of this coin now.

[Impaler]

I don't see why you can't join us and be ready for the cut foundation hard-fork
call when the currency objectives get compromised if that ever happens.

There isn't much incentive for the Freicoin developers/foundation to establish a better way to distribute rewards while the current method (you as the gatekeepers) disproportionately favors your interests. You've contrasted centralized distribution of rewards versus cultishly dancing around a sacrificial pyre of mining rewards, but there are other decentralized options besides mining rewards.

A good example is Impaler's PoS voting idea. Coin owners would vote on multiple budgets, and the most approved one would receive the subsidy/demurrage. I can understand your concerns with giving your power to the rich, but:

• They won't stay "rich" indefinitely because of demurrage
• They'll act in the best interests of Freicoin, trying to maximize its value much like shareholders do today
• It's much more secure from coercion than any centralized alternative
• The rich are contributing to the system and exposing themselves to risk by holding those coins
• (IMHO) Freicoin rich people are more altruistic than fiat rich people

And I'm sure there are other ways to decentralize distribution too. Right now you've got a half-finished distribution scheme that puts a lot of power in your own hands; anyone who supports Freicoin right now is saying they trust the foundation enough to give that power up when it's even greater.

While I had some refinements and suggestions the original credit for that idea goes to maaku and is called 'republicoin'.  Also it is a tool for demurrage handling in perpetuity, not an initial distribution tool because it presupposes a wide distribution of coins to begin with to prevent capture of the electoral results.  Current miners are too small of a group and the foundation would with its share basically decide the outcome (if it participated).

Also your points show a misinterpretation of our motivations.  We do not begrudge the rich their wealth (we are not communists), we object to usury aka interest which creates illegitimate revenue streams.  We set up the foundation to see that the initial distribution of the bulk of FRC dose not become an illegitimate revenue stream for individuals who's merit and work consisted merely of being 'first', we reject the BTC communities self-serving belief that 'first' entitles people to any significant wealth from the Seigniorage of cryptographic currency.  People who hold cryptographic currency and try to hype it merely for purposes of self enrichment are engaged in boarder-line fraud and are in my opinion enemies of all legitimate currency be they digital, commodity or Fiat.  Also mere holding of money is not exposing ones self to significant risk and is by our interpretation counter to the purpose of money and actually represents a threat to the success of FRC.  Merchants are on the other-hand the far greater risk takers and are deserving of commensurate rewards and praise.

[maaku]

The idea of 'republicoin' emerged very late in the beta testing stage, only a month or two from the final release. At the time we were intending to give 100% of the initial distribution to miners, but none of us were completely happy with that result for various reasons including what @Impaler has said above. However proof-of-stake voting on budgets is only an idea at this stage, and one that is not fully fleshed out or tested. We don't know if it will work the way we think it will, with a Nash equilibrium settling in on a reasonable, fair budget compromise, or if tricky users will find ways to gerrymander votes for selfish purposes.

Initial distribution through a Foundation was a half-way compromise. It let us release now and focus on getting the currency widespread adoption, while also buying us time to figure out how to properly distribute those coins. However the hope from the very beginning was that republicoin proof-of-stake voting would be properly tested and implemented before the end of the initial distribution period, at which point we'd transition whatever centralized process we have to a distributed, p2p mechanism for determining what to do with those funds.

We could use your help, and the help of anyone interested in p2p, coercion-less governance by protocol in defining how budgeting and hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake voting will work, writing the code, and testing it out.

[Explodicle]

That's why I stopped during late beta. You guys had a working 100% p2p currency and some interesting ideas on how to more efficiently distribute it. Then the foundation decided that raising/spending it immediately was more important than equal rules for every participant. For me, that compromise meant giving you guys emergency powers over the supply until a better solution could be found.

I'd be interested in helping with that better solution, but just grabbing everyone's money up front and working out the details later doesn't seem like a fair way to run a monetary system.

[Etlase2]

Initial distribution through a Foundation was a half-way compromise.

Wait, wait wait... instead of "republicoin" you guys came up with "give us all the coinscoin" as a half-way compromise? That's pretty insightful.

When are you guys planning on updating the marketing you have on various places around the internet to include _anything_ about this foundation (including the OP of this thread)? The longer you let this slide, the more you look like the shady crypto banksters that your coin blatantly argues you are (the code, not the webpages stating the exact opposite of course).

I didn't get a very good vibe from you early on in freicoin's development, and there still seems to be no reason to assuage it.

[maaku]

Well we weren't willing to wait, that was our weakness.

However one outcome is to sit on the coins and do nothing except provide a little bit here and there for the most widely popular and necessary grant proposals and infrastructure prizes, but let the rest sit in escrow being eaten away by demurrage. Once a proper p2p mechanism is in place (like republicoin), we could setup a cron job to spend the coins according to the current p2p budget. Indeed this is the default outcome we are currently on, since we are unwilling to spend the coins arbitrarily without community support.

The only thing holding us back from spending these coins via a p2p voting process is that such a process only exists now as an idea. Otherwise we'd be using it! However if you have time to contribute, we could use your help in creating just such a p2p distribution process.

EDIT: @Etlase2, honestly that's only really been a hang-up in the crypto-coin community, but getting it in use by people who don't evalutate it for its speculative value. In our conversations so far (with Gesellian monetary reform groups, for example) it hasn't been an issue.

[Etlase2]

I'm not interested in what Gesellian group-think thinks, I'm interested in why whenever I google freicoin I do not see anything about this foundation or how the currency is being distributed.

You are free to run your currency however you want. But your group keeping this on the down-low makes it seem as if you are ashamed of this feature.

[maaku]

I apologize if this sounds dismissive, but I have only a few hours a week I can devote to Freicoin and I'd rather spend that implementing infrastructure and new features (like republicoin) than handling non-essential PR.

[Etlase2]

It is unfortunate that dispelling the idea of being shady crypto banksters is not important to you.