One-world reserve currency inevitable and will enslave all nations?

[TPTB_need_war]

Because this also has the Butterfly effect that the more demand, the more people spending, the more people who earn it to spend it, etc..

GEC could be “mint[ed]” (TPTB_need_war) to someone on another’s behalf (by that same someone or another one) in an out-of-block coinbase (here, input-less) transaction.

Minting a coin with an anonymous IP (even in Bitcoin) doesn't have any inputs thus there is no loss of anonymity on the blockchain (or at least not until it is spent and downchain linkability and traceability is factored).

How does anonymity help scaling of distribution?

Perhaps I don't understand what you are describing?

[username18333]

How does anonymity help scaling of distribution?

Imagine Jane pays John for walking her dogs in fiat currency. Stewart could pay John, a GEC holder, new GEC to translate the fiat exchange into a GEC one. When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.

[aso118]

Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.

If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?

The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.

You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.

The price of bitcoin is the variable in that equation. Problem solved. 

Simpleton nonsense. Peter R showed the market cap is following Metcalf's law so the only way you can get to that valuation is for it to be widely adopted.

If you are talking about Bitcoin being the reserve currency of the world, then you are obviously talking about large scale adoption, Then the market cap (or rather money supply equivalent) of Bitcoin is going to increase.

[TPTB_need_war]

Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.

If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?

The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.

You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.

The price of bitcoin is the variable in that equation. Problem solved. 

Simpleton nonsense. Peter R showed the market cap is following Metcalf's law so the only way you can get to that valuation is for it to be widely adopted.

If you are talking about Bitcoin being the reserve currency of the world, then you are obviously talking about large scale adoption, Then the market cap (or rather money supply equivalent) of Bitcoin is going to increase.

How does talking about large scale adoption fix the underlying scaling problem?

(Logic is something that most humans seem to totally lack)

[TPTB_need_war]

How does anonymity help scaling of distribution?

Imagine Jane pays John for walking her dogs in fiat currency. Stewart could pay John, a GEC holder, new GEC to translate the fiat exchange into a GEC one. When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.

You write in a way that is cryptic and virtually no one will understand. I happen to understand what you mean because I invented this concept last year way before GEC did. Refer to AnonyMint's post about physical Bitcoins.

So what I assume you are proposing is that some coins become unspendable on the blockchain, thus they can instead be traded as cash physically. Stewart takes fiat in exchange for coins that John can prove he owns by signing but which can't be spent on the blockchain after he signs them to Jane.

The problem is that Jane can no longer spend the coins. So what can she do with them? She could mint a physical representation and trade that, but there is no authority to warrant against counterfeiting and debasing the physical money supply.

Sorry that doesn't work. I abandoned the concept.

[username18333]

The problem is that Jane can no longer spend the coins. So what can she do with them?

In the hypothetical, Jane does not handle GEC: Stewart does so in her stead (and without her knowledge) through an input-less transaction (to account, in GEC, for her fiat transaction with John, a GEC holder).

[TPTB_need_war]

The problem is that Jane can no longer spend the coins. So what can she do with them?

In the hypothetical, Jane does not handle GEC: Stewart does so in her stead (and without her knowledge) through an input-less transaction (to account, in GEC, for her fiat transaction with John, a GEC holder).

I have no idea what you describing then. Try again to explain what is going on and this time please use the English language clearly.

Why does Jane give fiat to John if she gets nothing in return? How does Stewart get fiat? Does John give it to him?

[username18333]

Why does Jane give fiat to John if she gets nothing in return? How does Stewart get fiat? Does John give it to him?

1. Jane recieves John's services.

2-3. John recieves new coins from Stewart (because Jane utilizes dollars, not coins).

[TPTB_need_war]

Why does Jane give fiat to John if she gets nothing in return? How does Stewart get fiat? Does John give it to him?

1. Jane recieves John's services.

2-3. John recieves new coins from Stewart (because Jane utilizes dollars, not coins).

I have no fucking idea what you are describing (and probably you don't know clearly what you are describing either). When you are ready to explain something in a clear manner then I will read.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

They will try to use a blockchain to keep the fiat scam perpetually going amongst the next generations, our only hope is that the next generations dont fall for the official, closed source fiatcoin of the government and use the people's coin (bitcoin).

[username18333]

I have no [copulat]ing idea what you are describing (and probably you don't know clearly what you are describing either).

Code:

USD= JANE "debit to" JOHN                     "debit to" XXXX
GEC=                 STEWART "credit to" JOHN "debit to" NULLDATA

[TPTB_need_war]

I have no [copulat]ing idea what you are describing (and probably you don't know clearly what you are describing either).

Code:

USD= JANE "debit to" JOHN                     "debit to" XXXX
GEC=                 STEWART "credit to" JOHN "debit to" NULLDATA

Since you can't even explain clearly, then you have no hope whatsoever with your coin. If I can't understand, you can be sure the majority of folks won't understand.

I have no idea what you are describing. All I can surmise is Jane pays fiat to John for walking her dogs. John gives the fiat to Stewart in exchange for GEC. If that is not the case, you will need to explain your gibberish in the English language. I have no idea what you meant by:

When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.

You are wasting my time. In every professional situation I have worked in my life, if someone couldn't explain something clearly the first time (or at least not exhibit an apathy towards trying to be clear), they were thereafter ignored (and fired!).

[username18333]

I have no idea what you are describing. All I can surmise is Jane pays fiat to John for walking her dogs. John gives the fiat to Stewart in exchange for GEC. If that is not the case, you will need to explain your gibberish in the English language. I have no idea what you meant by:

When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.

Within the context of the hypothetical, no one gives Stewart anything: Stewart addresses, to John, a transaction that has output but does not have input (i.e., he "mints"/credits GEC to one of the GEC addresses John controls). Additionally, John pays the fiat to an undisclosed party at another, unrelated time; when he does so, he uses the GEC he received from Stewart to fund an unspendable transaction (i.e., he "burns" it).

[TPTB_need_war]

I have no idea what you are describing. All I can surmise is Jane pays fiat to John for walking her dogs. John gives the fiat to Stewart in exchange for GEC. If that is not the case, you will need to explain your gibberish in the English language. I have no idea what you meant by:

When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.

Within the context of the hypothetical, no one gives Stewart anything: Stewart addresses, to John, a transaction that has output but does not have input (i.e., he "mints"/credits GEC "to" John). Additionally, John pays the fiat to an undisclosed party at another, unrelated time; when he does so, he uses the GEC he received from Stewart to fund an unspendable transaction (i.e., he "burns" it).

Why does it require so many exchanges with you to get you to explain it completely?

You still have not made it clear how this works. Why would Stewart do that if he gets nothing? Why is Stewart involved?

Why would John burn GEC in order to give someone his fiat?

None of it makes any sense.

[TPTB_need_war]

Why does it require so many exchanges with you to get you to explain it completely?

You still have not made it clear how this works. Why would Stewart do that if he gets nothing? Why is Stewart involved?

Why would John burn GEC in order to give someone his fiat?

0. Apparently, I don't think like you do. (See the diagram above.)

Because you assume readers can read your mind. You have massive holes in your explanation which is information that you have already in your mind but you haven't explained to us.

1-2. To carry that USD transaction in the USD economy over to the GEC economy.

This my last attempt. If you fail again to make a long and detailed explanation, then your laziness will be rewarded with an ignore from me.

You still have not explained what Stewart's individual economic motivation is. And why is he involved. Nor have you explained why John has an individual economic motivation to burn GEC when he spends fiat. Nor have you adequately explained why they benefitted from involving GEC in the first place. Seems to me that GEC was never involved. Jane paid John in fiat. John spends the fiat. GEC has no involvement except for some fantasy conjured in your mind.

[username18333]

You still have not explained what Stewart's individual economic motivation is. And why is he involved. Nor have you explained why John has an individual economic motivation to burn GEC when he spends fiat. Nor have you adequately explained why they benefitted from involving GEC in the first place. Seems to me that GEC was never involved. Jane paid John in fiat. John spends the fiat. GEC has no involvement except for some fantasy conjured in your mind.

Both Stewart and John are interested in using GEC (Stewart more so than John); however, not many other people are. Accordingly, Stewart carries USD transactions over into the GEC economy so they (i.e., Stewart and John) can exchange GEC with each other and other GEC holders instead of exchanging USD with each other. However, in doing this, USD and GEC must be removed from their respective economies to maintain the one-to-one correspondence of the GEC they are exchanging inside the GEC economy with the USD they receive and pay outside of the GEC economy (inside the USD economy).

[TPTB_need_war]

You still have not explained what Stewart's individual economic motivation is. And why is he involved. Nor have you explained why John has an individual economic motivation to burn GEC when he spends fiat. Nor have you adequately explained why they benefitted from involving GEC in the first place. Seems to me that GEC was never involved. Jane paid John in fiat. John spends the fiat. GEC has no involvement except for some fantasy conjured in your mind.

Both Stewart and John are interested in using GEC (Stewart more so than John); however, not many other people are. Accordingly, Stewart carries USD transactions over into the GEC economy so they (i.e., Stewart and John) can exchange GEC with each other and other GEC holders instead of exchanging USD with each other. However, in doing this, USD and GEC must be removed from their respective economies to maintain the one-to-one correspondence of the GEC they are exchanging inside the GEC economy with the USD they receive and pay outside of the GEC economy (inside the USD economy).

You've violated the fundamental tenet of crypto-currency which is decentralized trust, i.e. the abolition of requiring individual trust.

There is no way the parties can be sure that someone has retired fiat in order to use its value on GEC, then burning GEC again when it is desired to unretire the fiat.

I thought about all these mechanisms before and I came to the conclusion there is no way to have  decentralized physical backing for a crypto-coin.

Sorry.

[username18333]

I thought about all these mechanisms before and I came to the conclusion there is no way to have  decentralized physical backing for a crypto-coin.

Inside the GEC economy, anyone may spend entire exacoins to themselves at anytime; however, to do so would be to make everyone quintillion-aires, for others would soon follow suit. (In other words, it is the reality of others' "following suit" that, ultimately, regulates the inflation of the GEC economy.)

[TPTB_need_war]

I thought about all these mechanisms before and I came to the conclusion there is no way to have  decentralized physical backing for a crypto-coin.

Inside the GEC economy, anyone may spend entire exacoins to themselves at anytime; however, to do so would be to make everyone quintillion-aires, for others would soon follow suit. (In other words, it is the reality of others "following suit" that, ultimately, regulates the inflation of the GEC economy.)

Sorry, individuals don't prioritize the effects of group action over their near-term individual gain.

[username18333]

Sorry, individuals don't prioritize the effects of group action over their near-term individual gain.

Groupthink says otherwise.