Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:28:08 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: New crypto-currency Beertokens and it's Exchange  (Read 23928 times)
TierNolan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 06:20:35 PM
 #41

I dunno, he's clearly put in some effort.  What is definitely serious is the infrastructure to support more experimental currencies.  I doubt that BTC is the last word on chain-of-work currencies.

Fair enough, my comment was unfair.

1LxbG5cKXzTwZg9mjL3gaRE835uNQEteWF
1480710488
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710488

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710488
Reply with quote  #2

1480710488
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480710488
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710488

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710488
Reply with quote  #2

1480710488
Report to moderator
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
 #42

Why not use this:

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

It is very international and is already well established...


Cheers Wink

If you store a big mac they last for a long long time.

elements
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 03:27:52 AM
 #43

Why not use this:

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

It is very international and is already well established...


Cheers Wink

If you store a big mac they last for a long long time.



Not for storage but as base of the currecy
(I doubt that 10.000.000 cans of beer will be stored anyway)

»A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.« - Douglas Adams
Use the trusted German Bitcoin exchange: https://www.bitcoin.de/de/r/5wcwts
Tips & donations: BTC : 1MAQYNLp2VJ9wWhPYg5BnrbUGzdhGXopZw | CGB: 5bgQivyHJcSWTgvLfVW87Zj23M7mcFCVBF
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2011, 03:51:52 AM
 #44

Ach well here's the beauty o' the reserves system, lad...

...They dinna need t'a store yon beer, on account'a they kin store Scotch Tokens 'n Wine Tokens instead, ye ken?

...An' o'course them Catholics dinna need t'store yon wine, d'ya ken, on account'a they kin store Beer Tokens 'n Scotch Tokens instead, ye ken?

...So lets drink up all this Scotch, aye laddies, an keep reserves o'yon Beer 'n Wine tokens t'back oor Scotch Tokens wi', eh?

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
sacarlson
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2011, 04:15:10 AM
 #45

Why not use this:

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

It is very international and is already well established...


Cheers Wink

Now your starting to get the idea.  As stated in the prospectus any product, commodity or index can be used as the basis of value of the tokens to determine and hold the value to in the units in the crypto block chain.  From the start or over time “The Trust” may change what they decide to use as as a base value index or the name or any settings in the infrastructure.  In this model all decisions are bases on votes of the holders of coins in the chain much like decisions are made in corporations.     BeerTokens with Beer was only chosen in this example as  a means to communicate the concept of a method and the infrastructures needed to support such a concept and a proof of concept.  The names used and indexes or commodity used have no real bearing on the concept method of creating a stable crypto currency.  It's only to illustrate  the infrastructure and tools needed to support such a concept and proof of concept.  To make it simple anything can be changed it's all up to you “The Trust” holders.  And I and others continue to build the other parts of the infrastructure to make this and or other possibilities a reality.  So step up and be counted to make your mark to help shape the future of mankind.  Don't continue to be a helpless fish in a barrel, at the whims and under the control of the software developers, miners and or politicians and bankers.

for more info on MultiCoin check out #multicoin chat on freenode , for more info on BeerTokens see the [url=http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9
elements
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:23:56 PM
 #46

Re: from the start or over time

well, from the start I understand:
could be any tangible commodity which is internationally
availabe and more or less stable in price.
it should be very fungible, though
(1 gram of gold, 1 kg copper, can of beer, big mac)

But "change over time" I can only see that with an almost parity
between the old base and the new base at the date of rebasing.

Otherwise the whole currency would either lose or gain value
depending on the difference in value of the old and new commodity-base

right?
 

»A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.« - Douglas Adams
Use the trusted German Bitcoin exchange: https://www.bitcoin.de/de/r/5wcwts
Tips & donations: BTC : 1MAQYNLp2VJ9wWhPYg5BnrbUGzdhGXopZw | CGB: 5bgQivyHJcSWTgvLfVW87Zj23M7mcFCVBF
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 10:35:25 PM
 #47

As stated in the prospectus any product, commodity or index can be used as the basis of value of the tokens to determine and hold the value to in the units in the crypto block chain.

If you can do it, I think it would be better to have a terra-like reference currency or use directly the CPI you like more.
But I don't understand how can you make a terra without storing the actual commodities.
How is the value of the dollar, euro or bitcoin linked in a way that you can hold bitcoins to back oil?
Can't the trust go bankrupt?

Even if you could do it, how do you make the CPI decentralized?
This second problem is the main issue I see with this other proposal.
I'm not sure I've understand options correctly, but maybe that's what the trust should accumulate.

Also, If you get to put the CPI inside the chain, I'm sure someone wants to use it make an alternative chain with a monetary base that depends on prices. The problem I see with that is that you may over-reward miners during periods of inflation creation.

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

Activity: 38



View Profile WWW
August 03, 2011, 10:16:30 AM
 #48

We now are at preliminary review of the new BeerTokens crypto currency spec that uses MultiCoin-exp as the client.  The multicoin-exp config spec is presently published and will be updated from this site: http://exchange.beertokens.info/docs/multicoin/bitcoin.conf.beerA .  The chain is now running at "difficulty" : 50.0 ,  That is designed to be merge mined by other namecoin miners and or bitcoin miners.  It is designed to pay .0001 BEER for each mined block up to block number 50,000 where it will pay .001 BEER.  These future mining subsidies are subject to change depending on market conditions.  This is all we could possibly afford to pay for mining at the start.  If we find we can't get miners to this payoff we might have to wait for licensed mining.  For some details on how to setup MultiCoin-exp for merge mining of BeerTokens see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg394289#msg394289 . If you have any problems setting it up please ask us direct at freenode chat #multicoin so that we know what we need to add to the documentation to make it work for more people.  Note the spec is not finalized yet and it will be evolving over the next few days or weeks.

Update Aug 4, 2011 8:30pm BKK.  I found we have a big bug in the new Diff_post_triger and Diff_triger_block config settings in MultiCoin-exp that cause orphaned blocks after block 12 when starting a new system from an empty datadir.  So this feature will have to eather be fixed or not used.  I'll take a closer look at it tomaro.  This is what happens when you try to do too much tooo fast.

Update Aug 7, 2011 5:43pm BKK.  The above bug has been isolated and fixed with present release of MultiCoin-exp and a slightly modified bitcoin.conf.beerA .  Preliminary test all look good.  I moved out merge mining to now start at block 1500 to add more test time.  A new difficulty change point has been  added at block 1510 but we will have time to change that or delete it if we find we need to.

Update Aug 9, 2011 6:56 BKK.  We have our first merge miner connected to the beerA config spec chain.  Presently the miner is merged with Namecoin and BeerTokens mining at 370Mh/sec.  Soon there will be many more.

for more info on MultiCoin check out #multicoin chat on freenode , for more info on BeerTokens see the [url=http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2011, 05:57:13 PM
 #49

I've updated the list of currencies on my sign to include beertokens. Maybe you're interested in the reserveCoin idea.

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

Activity: 70


Only a curious passer-by / FirstBits: 13zsc1


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2011, 07:20:53 PM
 #50

I don't like that spring up cryptocurrencies everywhere.

Listen Radio Libre (Electronica) Donate. (click for details).

Chilean peso VS BTC ahora: http://irage.ca/2btc.php?a=1&c=CLP&r=1

My bitcoin address
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2011, 09:12:41 AM
 #51

I don't like that spring up cryptocurrencies everywhere.

I like them only if they have an improvement over bitcoin. I don't think that all listed currencies are better than bitcoin, but maintaining the list is a way to avoid that people came up with the same "new idea" every month.
I would be happy if we added demurrage to bitcoin. But since that's not going to happen, freicoin is needed to attack interest.

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

Activity: 481



View Profile WWW
August 05, 2011, 03:40:51 PM
 #52

I don't like that spring up cryptocurrencies everywhere.
I like them only if they have an improvement over bitcoin.

I would like to see thousands of currencies with a wide range of features.  Monetary policy is not easy to get right, and BTC is not the last word on it.  The way to improvement lies through unfettered experiment.

Can a change to the best-chain criteria protect against 51% to 90+% attacks without a hard fork?
d'aniel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 01:31:54 AM
 #53

I've been discussing how Bitcoin might overcome the adoption/volatility problems in the event that the adoption rate stagnates before they've solved themselves.  I ended up proposing a solution that jtimon said looked a lot like Beertoken, so I thought I'd post it here for posterity, and to see if beertoken could be adapted to be suitable for this purpose.

Namely, it'll need to be able to pay out interest - both postive and negative - to currency owners at per-block rates specified by the central issuer.  The transactions do not need to occur for every address, during every block, obviously, but only at the time a transaction is made.  In the meantime the client can just calculate effective balances of addresses.

The CHECKMULTISIG OP code is also required, but that's for the Bitcoin developers to enable.  It's not stated below, but it'll also require nLockTime for trust-free exchanges of cryptocurrencies - something also for the Bitcoin devs to enable.

Here is the use case:
The problems to be solved are the temporary hurdles of price volatility and merchant adoption, while effectively avoiding splitting the user base, and making the network effect - and thus reduction in price volatility - harder to achieve.  Any potential long run problems like steady deflation or lack of mining incentives should be looked at separately, and can be easily overcome later on if the time comes that they are relevant.  As I believe cunicula agrees, they should not be a consideration at this time.

Based on the conversations here, these problems appear to require human management to be most effectively solved, and any decentralized solutions have been admittedly lacking.  So to solve these problems while keeping the user base effectively contiguous, I proposed having all of the new currency be issued through a "distributed central bank".  By distributed, I mean that any transactions it engages in must be signed by some threshold number of the organizations that run it.  This is possible using the OP code CHECKMULTISIG which isn't currently enabled in Bitcoin.  The bank would uphold a promise to redeem its currency 1-1 for bitcoins, plus any variable fees.

It can credibly keep this promise, without any risk of a run, by using demurrage when it wants to devalue the currency instead of inflation.  Demurrage results in excess reserves being held by the bank, which can be used later on to pay interest to currency holders in order to fight undesirable currency devaluation, as well as to subsidize merchants and developers.  In this way, the price chart of the new currency could look more like a moving average of Bitcoin's if the bank does a good job.

Gresham's law would need to be enforced during times of deliberate currency devaluation, since otherwise people would just dump the currency on the bank 1-1 for bitcoins.  This can be done by deterring redemption at these times with fees.  Conversely, while the bank is supporting the currency with interest, arbitrageurs need to be deterred with fees from buying up a ton of the new currency from the bank 1-1 for bitcoins, and soaking up all the available excess reserves to be paid out.

Txn fees can also be used to devalue the currency, and collect revenue to be distributed as interest, or merchant and developer subsidies.

Despite the increased centralization, trust should not be an issue as it can be distributed over multiple organizations in the way described above.  Management can also be distributed over multiple jurisdictions, and because the backing is non-physical, it should be resistant to confiscation by states, unlike gold for example.  Also, because this is a measure designed to overcome the temporary hurdles described above, the arrangement doesn't have to last forever, or even very long, hopefully.  Afterward, the bank can stop issuing new currency, gradually redeem all of what remains in circulation, and then finally disband once it's achieved its purpose.

This solution effectively avoids splitting the user base since the relative valuation of the new currency and Bitcoin is completely determined by the bank's transparent monetary policy.  This means that added trading depth in one should lead to added stability in the other as well by the actions of arbitrageurs.

It also avoids having to solve the initial distribution problem and builds off of the work already done by Bitcoin toward solving the initial adoption and volatility smoothing problems.  People are incentivized to buy into and hold onto the new currency because it offers them improved stability, and out of the sense that by doing so, they're helping to aid the the adoption and development of Bitcoin, thereby increasing the value of their holdings in the long run.

If this is successful in giving us a widely adopted, steadily deflating currency, then at that point the protocol and blockchain can be forked to solve the steady deflation problem, if it is indeed a problem.  Or if human feedback is desired, then a new "distributed central bank" can form with this new purpose.  I'd prefer the latter solution, as it would be more effective, and the transition wouldn't be at all economically disruptive.  That, or a gradual transition to the former via the latter.  In the same way any potential future miner incentive problem can be addressed.

Mmmm. Your idea seems pretty centralized to me.
I suggest you read beertoken, stablecoin and reservecoin proposals in the list of my sign.

Thanks jtimon, I will read them.

I think there are distinct short term and long term problems, and that only the short term ones are relevant now since there exists an obvious way down the road to address the long term ones when they become relevant.  (The particular solution details are not obvious - they're what you guys are coming up with here - but the way to roll them out is.)  So because the added centralization from this proposal only exists temporarily to give Bitcoin a leg up over the adoption hurdle, I don't see it as a problem.  Especially considering the organizational structure I proposed.

I also see it as necessary since these short-term problems clearly require, or would at least be much better solved using, external inputs and human management.

And it's especially beneficial since it avoids splitting the user base and causing economic disruption, unlike rolling out a whole new block chain or forking the existing one.

I'd also like to state that I remain quite hopeful that Bitcoin will make it over the adoption hurdle without this kind of help, and that this should only be seen as a kind of contingency plan.

Don't think I can make the case any better than that, so there you have it.

I was thinking another way the managers might be kept accountable and competent might be if several of these banks were operating for profit and in competition with one another.  There's nothing to stop viable for profit competitors from springing up if the stability etc. they offer is compelling enough.

Are you okay with managing the exchange rate through currency creation and currency destruction? I don't like fixed exchange rates.
In my proposal the market exchange rate between the bank's currency and Bitcoin is not actually fixed - it will wiggle around 1-1 since the currency will occasionally be paying either positive or negative interest.  Furthermore, there is currency creation and destruction going on via interest payments and demurrage, respectively.  But I think I see what you mean - you're suggesting the bank issue and absorb currency through "open market operations", right?

I proposed this method instead 1) to reinforce a common (on the larger time scale) currency unit, 2) to avoid introducing risks of insufficient reserves, and 3) because it seemed to me to do the best job of evenly/fairly distributing purchasing power gains/losses (cut the speculators out, they're not necessary when issuing a Bitcoin-like currency).

Quote
Also if you want to fix the exchange rate, then you will need physical control over some location where people can redeem their coins. This might prove difficult. Control over creation and destruction can be managed by anyone with access to a computer interface and the right password.
Physical key storage is an unfortunate fact of having human control over currency issuance/redemption, I think.  But I tried to mitigate this by suggesting using the CHECKMULTISIG OP code to require some majority of the managers' signatures in order to produce a valid transaction.  This way, some minority of them can at any given time lose their keys or be corrupted somehow, and the bank will go on functioning smoothly.
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
September 06, 2011, 01:25:48 PM
 #54

Ok, so you are basically a 100% reserve bank of whatever currencies you decide to hold. But the question now is: whats the point? Why would I want to use your currency instead of euros if I know they are the "same? And what do you get of all this and how do I know you will stay honest?

Well, he is using an actual commodity, so no central bank control.  Also, you can trade them electronically.

Since bitcoins seem to be increasing in value, there seems little point in not just using them.

What it could be good for is to give a stable reference for bitcoins' actual value.  For example, you could hold bitcoins but agree to pay in beertokens.  This would eliminate the need to do the deflation calculation in your head.

But if you are fixing the price to another currency, why not hold the other currency directly? I mean, if I know 5 beers are going to always be 50 euros, why not just have 50 euros and avoid the counterparty risk?

because the price of beer will be going up in euros, but will always be the same amount of beercoins

mcgreed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 20, 2013, 07:12:14 PM
 #55

sacarlson, I have not read this whole thread yet, but I've read enough that I think I may have expressed similar or the same ideas in the following post, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to read them. My apologies if it's too wordy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245528.msg2602961#msg2602961

I'd be happy if you found any of those ideas useful and incorporated them. As I say, I haven't read this whole thread yet (and can't at the moment--I'll come back ot this), so I'll personally be curious to read this whole thread.

Re BeerToken, I actually had the same idea, except I thought it might be pegged to the value of one pint of whatever may be argued to be the most beloved/widely used Irish beer (Guinness?), at whatever value it's at in the most popular pub in Ireland.

I also thought about pegging it to the value of a kg of wheat, but . . . come on. What is wheat for? Smiley

BTC: 13DiTAMLLTkN35S8Y1duz15pf6XY4Rtr1V  LTC: LLJmd2McSLS5AKttMDueD4TAL232ysGyF9 -- farmComm: mine when idle, logged in or out. Public Domain, Open-Source, Free. Ann. post: http://j.mp/16jaN7J -- Watching: BitShares development http://j.mp/15e5MkQ -- dev. repo: http://j.mp/176Az1D -- white paper: http://j.mp/153kMop
Titan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


Luckycoin Developer http://luckycoin.cc


View Profile WWW
July 20, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
 #56

sacarlson, I have not read this whole thread yet, but I've read enough that I think I may have expressed similar or the same ideas in the following post, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to read them. My apologies if it's too wordy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245528.msg2602961#msg2602961

I'd be happy if you found any of those ideas useful and incorporated them. As I say, I haven't read this whole thread yet (and can't at the moment--I'll come back ot this), so I'll personally be curious to read this whole thread.

Re BeerToken, I actually had the same idea, except I thought it might be pegged to the value of one pint of whatever may be argued to be the most beloved/widely used Irish beer (Guinness?), at whatever value it's at in the most popular pub in Ireland.

I also thought about pegging it to the value of a kg of wheat, but . . . come on. What is wheat for? Smiley

Hi, I think your idea is better implemented at a higher level and not in a coin itself. There are many technical obstacles to put this in a coin.

Some pools already move in your discribed direction: multipool.in and middlecoin.com.
Although the switching criterion of the most profitable coin is maybe not the best choice.

I still think that the Luckycoin mining parameters are fundamentally sound.
I have researched some options for the retarget algorithm, but I fear non of them will not solve the multipool issue.

Titan

bytemaster
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728

BitShares


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2013, 01:35:11 AM
 #57

I suspect that using BitShares with a 'BitBeer' asset would track the price of Beer +/- 3% and not be centrally controlled like Beertokens.  It would also pay dividends so...




https://steemit.com  Blogging is the new Mining
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  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!