Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:48:42 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] Freicoin: demurrage crypto-currency from the Occupy movement (crowdfund)  (Read 56453 times)
Bicknellski
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 01:57:57 PM
 #341

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.

Or you can just simply refuse to mine it and avoid city hall, the whole debate and leave others to do the heavy lifting right?

Dogie trust abuse, spam, bullying, conspiracy posts & insults to forum members. Ask the mods or admins to move Dogie's spam or off topic stalking posts to the link above.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481284122
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284122

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284122
Reply with quote  #2

1481284122
Report to moderator
1481284122
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284122

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284122
Reply with quote  #2

1481284122
Report to moderator
shakezula
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 02:19:59 PM
 #342

Look, this coin languishes because of the same reasons the "Occupy" movement died. Don't mis-understand me, I believe in Gesell's work and agree with the philosophy behind Freigeld but three or four serious people in a group of thousands of derelicts will never produce lasting or meaningful results.

Let me ask, what did Occupy accomplish? Before you tell me that it showed the world "we're not going to take it anymore," ask yourself, "take what?" The Occupy movement was headline news when it began, full of radical thinkers and youth seemingly bent on changing the world for the better, oh if only everyone loved everyone and respected human nature! If only the evil-corporate monopolies would see that the people REALLY want to live in abject squalor and stop raping the planet to produce consumer goods right? Funny, there were not a lot of Occupy movements in India, Africa, or South America--was that because of localized governmental control or because the people there couldn't expend time/effort to pitch a tent and bitch about getting more things for free?

This coin and its "foundation" are similar. Stage a digital version of the movement, fire people up with thinly-veiled political double-speak socialism under the guise that, 'ITS TIME TO DO SOMETHING!" Alas, who's listening? I feel that most people have realized that Occupy is/was not a world-changing movement. Throngs of unwashed, uninformed, and ignorant campers with drum circles and protest signs can't change the world anymore--its too big and complex now. Interesting to think that all of the iPhones/HandiCams, Tents, Water bottles, bullhorns, cardstock for signs, and even sharpie markers are products of the society Occupy complains so vehemently against.

More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.


jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
 #343

More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.

No, the notion is to avoid a huge waste of energy by issuing that money through mining.
The foundation doesn't wants to decide how to spend the money directly, that's why the community is proposing several alternatives to distribute the coins without wasting energy and without "central decisions" by the foundation. Ideas like curecoin (cure cancer instead of mindless hashing for issuance) or increasing voluntary donations in a crowdfunding platform.
The point of the proposals is to take responsibility out of the foundation and back to the community and individual decisions.
Please, post your own alternative to mining if you have any idea.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
dego
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 379



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 11:49:36 PM
 #344

At the current state there won't be an alternative to mining, aight? But if mining continues as slow as it is, there will be more energy efficient miners to do that necessary job...

Following the crypto revolution since 2011.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 02:56:11 PM
 #345

More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.

No, the notion is to avoid a huge waste of energy by issuing that money through mining.
The foundation doesn't wants to decide how to spend the money directly, that's why the community is proposing several alternatives to distribute the coins without wasting energy and without "central decisions" by the foundation. Ideas like curecoin (cure cancer instead of mindless hashing for issuance) or increasing voluntary donations in a crowdfunding platform.
The point of the proposals is to take responsibility out of the foundation and back to the community and individual decisions.
Please, post your own alternative to mining if you have any idea.


I've been thinking more about this problem:

1) I'm not certain that the amount of energy spent is directly proportional to mining revenue, because Freicoin is merge-mineable with Bitcoin. If Freicoin hash power is much less elastic (relative to Freicoin mining revenue) than it is with Bitcoin, then you're making Freicoin more vulnerable to swings in Bitcoin price (which are arguably caused by deflation). This is because the decision to mine or not mine SHA256 depends more on what the merge-mined Bitcoins are worth than the price of Freicoin.

2) I can't think of any way to poll "the community" fairly, in a way that includes everyone, and you certainly didn't think of a way to do so before adopting this centralization aspect in the first place. How do you know who is and isn't a sock puppet? Do you expect people to trust you, or to audit your entire distribution process? There's only one provably fair way to distribute this hoard - to destroy it.

Any time someone criticises this money grab, you put the burden on them to solve the problem you created.
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2013, 03:32:33 PM
 #346

1) I'm not certain that the amount of energy spent is directly proportional to mining revenue, because Freicoin is merge-mineable with Bitcoin. If Freicoin hash power is much less elastic (relative to Freicoin mining revenue) than it is with Bitcoin, then you're making Freicoin more vulnerable to swings in Bitcoin price (which are arguably caused by deflation). This is because the decision to mine or not mine SHA256 depends more on what the merge-mined Bitcoins are worth than the price of Freicoin.

First things are valued, then producers (looking at prices) calculate costs and decide to produce or not.
To merge mine or not to merge mine only affects security, but the economics are the same:

miner's profits + capital costs + energy costs = revenue

Of course this is not a universal law, one part tends to equal the other and miner's profits should tend to zero, but those things happen only in perfect markets not real ones...
In the same way, the 80% issuance doesn't make mining unprofitable (that's dynamically adjusted), it only hires less security.
Without merged mining you will cap the security you have, with merged mining, Freicoin could be as secure as Bitcoin more or less independently of its price.

2) I can't think of any way to poll "the community" fairly, in a way that includes everyone, and you certainly didn't think of a way to do so before adopting this centralization aspect in the first place. How do you know who is and isn't a sock puppet? Do you expect people to trust you, or to audit your entire distribution process? There's only one provably fair way to distribute this hoard - to destroy it.

The first mechanism will be transparent donations in Freicoin and Bitcoin to registered non-profits. The Foundation will issue some freicoins to match those donations in proportion to what they have received.
This can be transparent, clean and productive. More than mining in all these three aspects.
People will vote with their pockets. It's not "perfectly fair" (whatever that means) but it's fair enough for most of us.

Any time someone criticises this money grab, you put the burden on them to solve the problem you created.

No, I tell them to propose new issuance mechanisms and discuss the current proposals.
Seigniorage is a problem we haven't created (it's much older than us)
and Bitcoin hasn't solved by destroying real resources in a sterile
attempt to mimic gold. But this technology gives the opportunity to
use it for the commons and positive things instead of financing states and
wars like other times, or just produce more heat like Bitcoin.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 09:11:59 PM
 #347

2) I can't think of any way to poll "the community" fairly, in a way that includes everyone, and you certainly didn't think of a way to do so before adopting this centralization aspect in the first place. How do you know who is and isn't a sock puppet? Do you expect people to trust you, or to audit your entire distribution process? There's only one provably fair way to distribute this hoard - to destroy it.

The first mechanism will be transparent donations in Freicoin and Bitcoin to registered non-profits. The Foundation will issue some freicoins to match those donations in proportion to what they have received.
This can be transparent, clean and productive. More than mining in all these three aspects.
People will vote with their pockets. It's not "perfectly fair" (whatever that means) but it's fair enough for most of us.
I'm not sure what "perfectly" fair is either, but a provably fair system would be one in which all participants can prove that the 80% coins were handled according to strict rules without having to trust anyone. You're asking us to either trust you or independently verify that these recieving addresses belong to registered charities. That's a non-trivial cost that doesn't exist with "wasted" heat.

And this of course assumes that users are OK with a government having veto power over acceptable charities - those of us who would donate to Wikileaks or Defense Distributed might be disappointed. I think you'll find that every new rule you make is "fair enough" when you only ask people who have not yet left the project; it's an echo chamber.

The only thing that differentiates this system from pure 100% subsidy is you are requiring us to spend a minimum on state-approved charities instead of productive for-profit activity, and you are retaining the right to say when this hoard is released into the money supply (much like a central bank). Miners who value these charities will mine at a "loss" and then you have wasted heat again.

Quote
Any time someone criticises this money grab, you put the burden on them to solve the problem you created.
No, I tell them to propose new issuance mechanisms and discuss the current proposals.
Seigniorage is a problem we haven't created (it's much older than us)
and Bitcoin hasn't solved by destroying real resources in a sterile
attempt to mimic gold. But this technology gives the opportunity to
use it for the commons and positive things instead of financing states and
wars like other times, or just produce more heat like Bitcoin.
How hasn't Bitcoin solved seigniorage? Seigniorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it. Right now the value of each Bitcoin block is worth roughly 100% of the cost to produce and distribute it. The value of each Freicoin block is roughly 500% of the cost to produce and distribute it.
maaku
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 11:01:47 PM
 #348

I'm not sure what "perfectly" fair is either, but a provably fair system would be one in which all participants can prove that the 80% coins were handled according to strict rules without having to trust anyone. You're asking us to either trust you or independently verify that these recieving addresses belong to registered charities. That's a non-trivial cost that doesn't exist with "wasted" heat.

We have better things to do with our time than come up with a cryptographically secure distribution method that's only going to see use once. “Provably fair” was never a design requirement.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2013, 11:12:02 AM
 #349

You're asking us to either trust you or independently verify that these recieving addresses belong to registered charities. That's a non-trivial cost that doesn't exist with "wasted" heat.

Everybody will be able to see the transactions in the public chain,
100% transparency in this reward. The only way we could cheat is by
lying on what address belongs to what organization.
We could say:

-See? we're giving the money to this address, which belongs to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.

But if it didn't belonged to that organization, that organization
would have something to say.
If we cheat with this system it will be easy to catch us, that's the
whole point. If we cheat, it's never too late to go back to the
only-mining hardfork.

And this of course assumes that users are OK with a government having
veto power over acceptable charities - those of us who would donate to
Wikileaks or Defense Distributed might be disappointed.

I don't see why wikileaks could not take funds in the same way. But,
yes, it's centralization, isn't perfect and that's why it's limited
to 3 years.

The only thing that differentiates this system from pure 100% subsidy
is you are requiring us to spend a minimum on state-approved charities
instead of productive for-profit activity, and you are retaining the
right to say when this hoard is released into the money supply
(much like a central bank).

It is for profit activity but it's not productive. Nobody benefits
from having such high currency production costs.
Again, the central issuing is not perfect. We hope to gradually
substitute it with more p2p mechanisms like proof of stake. If 3
years of issuing experimentation cannot give as a fully p2p
alternative to mining, the full 5% demurrage will have to go to
miners.

Miners who value these charities will mine at a "loss" and then you have wasted heat again.

No miners should always mine at a profit or stop their equipment.
Freicoin miners have mined at a profit most of the time, they
periodically mine at a higher profit that bitcoin miners.

How hasn't Bitcoin solved seigniorage? Seigniorage is the difference
between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it.

Since scarce money needs no backing you could maximize seigniorage
and minimize money production costs.
The seigniorage value comes from the people that accept the newly
created currency in exchange for real products. But since that value
will never be explicitly redeemed back by anyone it can be put to
use. Since money is a social agreement, the challenge is to invest
that value back into society, preferably (at least to me) developing
the commons (free software/hardware, free culture...)
Bitcoin does the opposite: it tries to minimize seigniorage (in this
case is profits for the miners) by maximizing money production costs.
It distributes the value by destroying it.

-How do you distribute 4 candies between 5 kids?
-You throw all the candies to the river so they don't fight.

-How do you prevent fires in the forest?
-You kill the forest first.

That's not solving the problem to me.

Right now the value of each Bitcoin block is worth roughly 100% of the
cost to produce and distribute it. The value of each Freicoin block is roughly 500% of the cost to produce and distribute it.

That's the whole point. The ratio cost to produce/value of Freicoin is
20% that of Bitcoin's. Freicoins are produced more efficiently and
the gains derived from this increased efficiency is what must be
distributed by the foundation.

The most important thing is that the value comes from the demand and
not from miners. That demand is explicitly approving the issuance
mechanisms in both cases Bitcoin and Freicoin. There's also demand
for other issuance schemes like xrp, where the marginal cost of
production is zero and 100% of the supply starts in the hands of a
private company.

Believe it or not, there's people that prefer Freicoin's issuance
experiments over btc destruction and xrp privilege, and that's why it
has demand and a market price.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 30, 2013, 02:57:42 PM
 #350

“Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
Peer-to-peer was, and unless you have equal rules for all participants it is not peer-to-peer. So yes, provably fair was never in the initial plans... it's just the only way to restore that plan.

You're asking us to either trust you or independently verify that these recieving addresses belong to registered charities. That's a non-trivial cost that doesn't exist with "wasted" heat.
Everybody will be able to see the transactions in the public chain,
100% transparency in this reward. The only way we could cheat is by
lying on what address belongs to what organization.
We could say:

-See? we're giving the money to this address, which belongs to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.

But if it didn't belonged to that organization, that organization
would have something to say.
If we cheat with this system it will be easy to catch us, that's the
whole point. If we cheat, it's never too late to go back to the
only-mining hardfork.
Since we're not assuming trust, this requires that every participant goes online and researches every receiving address. Do you think this wasted effort is less than the effort wasted by mining? What about charities which close their websites someday after they've recieved funds, are new users expected to check those? Unless you're requiring trust, every user from now until the end of Freicoin will need to spend energy and time performing verification - it's like meatspace mining.

Quote
Miners who value these charities will mine at a "loss" and then you have wasted heat again.

No miners should always mine at a profit or stop their equipment.
Freicoin miners have mined at a profit most of the time, they
periodically mine at a higher profit that bitcoin miners.
I don't think I was being clear here. If mined coins allow for matching funds, then any miner who would otherwise donate to charity has a greater incentive to earn them. So if I gain $1 of utility from donating 1 FRC to the EFF, I would rationally mine all the way to $2/FRC. So I pay $2 to mine 1 FRC @ $1/FRC, but get $2 worth of utility. At best, this means the same amount of energy spent.

Quote
How hasn't Bitcoin solved seigniorage? Seigniorage is the difference
between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it.

Since scarce money needs no backing you could maximize seigniorage
and minimize money production costs.
...

Right now the value of each Bitcoin block is worth roughly 100% of the
cost to produce and distribute it. The value of each Freicoin block is roughly 500% of the cost to produce and distribute it.

That's the whole point. The ratio cost to produce/value of Freicoin is
20% that of Bitcoin's. Freicoins are produced more efficiently and
the gains derived from this increased efficiency is what must be
distributed by the foundation.

The most important thing is that the value comes from the demand and
not from miners. That demand is explicitly approving the issuance
mechanisms in both cases Bitcoin and Freicoin. There's also demand
for other issuance schemes like xrp, where the marginal cost of
production is zero and 100% of the supply starts in the hands of a
private company.
I think the comparison to XRP is fair. I can understand your argument that seigniorage can potentially be efficient, but I'd like to see how efficiently these coins are actually distributed when the time comes. My guess is that more time and effort will be spent, and most charities will just convert to BTC and then to local fiat.

Quote
Believe it or not, there's people that prefer Freicoin's issuance
experiments over btc destruction and xrp privilege, and that's why it
has demand and a market price.
No offense, but I heard the exact same thing from RealSolid of SolidCoin. There is demand for every single alt coin here.
maaku
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
July 30, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
 #351

“Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
Peer-to-peer was, and unless you have equal rules for all participants it is not peer-to-peer. So yes, provably fair was never in the initial plans... it's just the only way to restore that plan.

No aspect of the protocol is centralized. None. Zero. Zilch. This whole initial distribution thing happens outside of the freicoin/bitcoin protocol.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 30, 2013, 04:35:12 PM
 #352

“Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
Peer-to-peer was, and unless you have equal rules for all participants it is not peer-to-peer. So yes, provably fair was never in the initial plans... it's just the only way to restore that plan.

No aspect of the protocol is centralized. None. Zero. Zilch. This whole initial distribution thing happens outside of the freicoin/bitcoin protocol.

So the protocol doesn't require 80% of new coins go to a specific address under your control? I was under the impression (incredibly sorry if mistaken!) that miners who tried to opt out of the seigniorage would be rejected by other nodes.

If the 80% seigniorage is completely optional and can be configured client-side, my whole argument is invalid.  Shocked
maaku
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
July 30, 2013, 05:44:02 PM
 #353

What do you mean by centralization? Let's taboo the word.

A centralized network protocol requires a specific network resource to be online and available in order for the protocol to work. Examples include a trusted timestamping, checkpointing, or routing server. This is the technical meaning that is prescribed to the opposite word "decentralized" as it applies to bitcoin - bitcoin is designed without any centralized network resource, and so among other things can continue to operate even in the face of powerful but not omniscient censorship. The same is true of Freicoin: so long as your blocks include the foundation outputs for the first three years, you will reach consensus with the Freicoin network.

Calling the budgetary requirements “centralization” is a twist of meaning. I wonder what you mean by that phrase? That is to say, if you taboo'd the word, what would you call it instead?

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
shakezula
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
July 30, 2013, 06:02:00 PM
 #354

Calling the budgetary requirements “centralization” is a twist of meaning. I wonder what you mean by that phrase? That is to say, if you taboo'd the word, what would you call it instead?

Hold on, he's got a valid point, the "FRC Foundation/you" control the 80% of FRC created...via a single wallet or not is irrelevant. Perhaps not "centralization," but it is certainly a single point of control. What word would you rather we use?
maaku
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
July 30, 2013, 06:52:26 PM
 #355

Single point of control... over that limited supply of coins. 80% of the monetary base, yes, but still finite. (1) Once those coins are spent they're gone. (2) Their movement can be tracked by anybody. (3) If anything funny happened, he market would pull the rug out from under us so fast, there'd be no hope of recovery.

When we conceived the idea of the Foundation in its current form, we were just weeks away from release. Our options were (1) release as-is with 100% miner subsidy and the associated opportunity cost; (2) add a simple, hardcoded budgeting system and issue the coins through non-profits; or (3) spend a year or more developing a fair, decentralized voting system for determining what to do with the coins, which may or may not have worked in its first incarnation. We chose the middle path, but for reference the most championed proposal for decentralized, non-mining issuance is described here:

http://www.freicoin.org/demurrage-should-it-all-go-to-miners-t20-40.html#p354

Are the keys to 80% of the eventual monetary base physically in my possession? Yes. Are we asking users to trust us while we figure out how to start a not-for-profit Foundation and do the distribution legally? Yes.

That's a far cry from a centralized protocol like the fiat banking system, or even lesser claims of centralization like the checkpointing systems that existed in PPCoin or SolidCoin.

Would we prefer a secure, decentralized voting mechanism with incentives structured to provide fair and equitable issuance without undue early adopter bias or vote manipulation? Yes. And while we're at it, I'd also like a pony, a million bitcoin, and to know who shot JFK.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 390



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 12:57:05 AM
 #356

At the current state there won't be an alternative to mining, aight? But if mining continues as slow as it is, there will be more energy efficient miners to do that necessary job...

The average time to solve a block is 29.73 minutes, since the algorithm change, a value which is declining as Freicoin miners realize they should not overreact to fluctuations in the difficulty.

Since the changeover in May 3,748 blocks have been solved.
gabbynot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 338


View Profile
August 09, 2013, 01:45:18 PM
 #357

Is anything actually going on with this alt?  What has the "foundation" been up to?

I see the exchange rate is well below a penny now...
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 05:44:42 PM
 #358

Since we're not assuming trust, this requires that every participant goes online and researches every receiving address.

Yes, we're assuming some level of trust, but not very high.

If we're honest, the only way to be sure about it is researching
every non-profit address and the charities themselves, or trust
someone else's research.

But if we cheat, it only takes a researcher to locate the proof of
fraud in the chain and show it to everyone.

Do you think this wasted effort is less than the effort wasted by mining? What about charities which close their websites someday after they've recieved funds, are new users expected to check those? Unless you're requiring trust, every user from now until the end of Freicoin will need to spend energy and time performing verification - it's like meatspace mining.

Future Freicoin users may have to trust that someone took the time to
audit the public accounting of an organization that no longer
influences freicoin supply in any way.

I don't think I was being clear here. If mined coins allow for matching funds, then any miner who would otherwise donate to charity has a greater incentive to earn them. So if I gain $1 of utility from donating 1 FRC to the EFF, I would rationally mine all the way to $2/FRC. So I pay $2 to mine 1 FRC @ $1/FRC, but get $2 worth of utility. At best, this means the same amount of energy spent.

Oh, I get your point now.
You're saying "if only miners donate to the non-profits and 100% of
miners mine at a loss only to give 100% of their earnings to the
non-profits, both systems are equivalent."
If frc is valued at 1 usd, miners profits should tend to decline so
that "production costs" equal 1 usd. But if miners are not counting
the 1 frc they receiving but the 1.1 frc the non-profits will get,
they will be ok with incurring 1.1 usd donation losses.
I'm assuming 10% donation matching by the foundation.
But miners can't mine 800 M frc in 3 years, so someone else will have
to make donations too, even assuming all miners donate everything
they get. And the matching of those donations cannot be counted as
production costs by the miners.

I think the comparison to XRP is fair. I can understand your argument that seigniorage can potentially be efficient, but I'd like to see how efficiently these coins are actually distributed when the time comes. My guess is that more time and effort will be spent, and most charities will just convert to BTC and then to local fiat.

I need to repeat that miner's profit are also seigniorage and bitcoin
also has it. But ANY seigniorage is more efficient than costs because
at least someone gets the value instead of it being completely
sacrificed by the community as a whole.

My guess is that more time and effort will be spent, and most charities will just convert to BTC and then to local fiat.

Well, that's very likely to happen, at least at the beginning, but
it's not the end of the world, someone will buy them and they're
already distributed. Of course, the ideal situation would be for them
to spend the FRC directly, but they converting to BTC and spending
them directly would help expand cryptocurrencies too, and it's not so
much to ask because there's already many things being sold for BTCs.

Maaku and I plan to operate a FRC/BTC exchange and offer automatic
conversion from it. So if you have FRC deposits, you can withdraw/pay
BTCs to any bitcoin address directly (and viceversa).

But for merchants that accept both, you will probably prefer to pay
FRC directly to save bitcoin's transaction fee, the trading fee and
the gap between bids and asks.

Quote
Believe it or not, there's people that prefer Freicoin's issuance
experiments over btc destruction and xrp privilege, and that's why it
has demand and a market price.
No offense, but I heard the exact same thing from RealSolid of SolidCoin. There is demand for every single alt coin here.

Ok, then just trust my word or ask to them yourself: although they're
still reluctant to use freicoin because of how different it is from
mutual credit, there's many people in the complementary currencies
movement that consider it a great improvement over bitcoin, and at
the same time changes a little bit their perception of bitcoin, which
they tend to criticize aggressively.
Finding out that the issuance doesn't require mining but you still
need it for security seems to make them accept the general concept
better.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
vindimy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 239



View Profile
December 04, 2013, 08:39:43 PM
 #359

Hello there,

Reddit ALTcointip bot has just announced its 2nd round of signups for a list of supported cryptocurrencies.

Please see the announcement for details. Thanks!

-- vindimy

jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2014, 11:12:42 AM
 #360


Please, advertise it for free here:

http://foundation.freicoin.org/#/trade

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!