Topic: * (Read 5827 times)

I will keep this short and to the point. I think this idea can work, but I also think this will not work. The bottom line is the majority of people are motivated by greed and self interest and do not care about the greater good.  If everyone was motivated to push things forward by any means they can not even involving money we would be living in a different world. I applaud you for your good intentions with it. Good Luck on the project.

When I saw Barack Obama in the trollbox of BTC-E I knew we would see a coin like this soon after. Yes someone did decide to choose that name.

To trick us coinhoarders to read it

Why is there a date in the title?

Can you someone tell me why this isn't as fail prone as it sounds?

I'm sorry if you've answered these questions/points already, but:

-Why would I want to buy a coin that will diminish in value at all? I'll just buy bitcoin or whatever instead. This is an incentive you need to think about because it's pretty crucial, I think. This is also why I don't like demurage.

-Isn't the economic model that holds that whe need everlasting (exponential) growth exactly the one we need to get away from? I'm not saying that it is per se, but I do think so at this moment. Everlasting growth is just not healthy, and I'd argue not even possible. We all need to start consuming less, not more. I think.

-A flat rate would still have the biggest spenders/holders pay the most fee's. Which seems fair to me, since they benefit from the project the most.

If a redistributive system could establish itself via free individual choices, we wouldn't need a state.

But of course 'poor' people will prefer redistributive systems... and 'rich' ones the non-redistributive ones. If this ever become the standard for daily payment, we would have Bitcoin as "tax heaven": you only keep 99 (or 10 if you are very greedy) Tencoins in your wallet, maybe thousands Bitcoins, and only convert into Tencoin when you need to spend them.

Quickly reading through it I like your idea, but:

-I think it needs a flat rate. There's nothing you can do stopping people from having loads of wallets with 99 coins.
-I don't like the idea of demurage, or whatever it's spelled like. Why not just make people pay for consumption instead, ie. (flatrate) transaction fee's are just fine, no? 0.01% of each transaction, or whatever.
-Use these fee's to pay of the network, but maybe in a proof of stake manner? I believe proof of stake doesn't have a cap anyways, basicly meaning inflation will eventually take care of the oligargs.
-Not a fan of the name either.

Wait, am I just describing PPCoin now, perhaps?

Just thinking out loud, really...

The best way to increase possession of the currency beyond the realm of miners is to increase the supply of goods and services available to be paid for directly with the electronic currency. By foregoing the need to convert BTC/LTC back to fiat we can expand participation in the crypto-economy to those who produce a good or service miners feel is just compensation for their invested resources. I know a lot of people are working on this and it's something that's steadily improving, there are already a lot of people who have electronic currency who never mined it.

I think a good start would be an incentive program wherein miners were compensated according to the MH/s (or KH/s) they apply to the network. For example, someone who mines at rate of 20MH/s would receive 20 coins, and someone who mines at a rate of 40MH/s would receive 40. Also to improve efficiency the miners could pool their resources into... let's call them "pools", and receive compensation based on their contribution toward the common good of the pool. I think this method would find success and is something worth exploring further.

Dear JR member. If you are going to release a coin, maybe google 'socialistic' for definition first.
Best,
Everyone.

Srsly? You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, next time start with "mining incentive" then work your way down from there. You're off your rocker if you think a notable portion of people with a $6-7000 mining investment and $25 per day electric bill are going to divert their resources toward this so they can wake up the next morning with less than what they started with. If for some reason this project ever did gain traction I'd load up the client just for the lulz and watch as other people's money found it's way into my account (in reality that wouldn't happen since no one would mine it). One of the major draws of BTC is that it keeps other people out of your wallet. You're redistributing currency not for charity, or even specifically for the "needy", but just for the hell of it. On the bright side you've successfully addressed the pre-mine dilemma.

Oh, and the wealthy do invest money. It's called capital gains, and the tax rates are significantly lower than ordinary income, thus the incentive generate most of your income by this method.

Thanks for posting your thoughts.

However i feel that is down in many countries on the planet already.

Your tax system = Bad Idea

The main thing you need to answer is "why?".

I predict great success for commiecoin. Don't forget to shoot the dissidents.

reserved

I feel so dumb when I read people talking about technicalities of cryptocurrency..

why not have it so that you must mine for an account
by this i mean, the number of accounts available could be determined by the number of coins in circulation thus you dont bankrupt the system though this doesnt address account spamming.
But seriously onto what I have to say
You should separate the population into 2 categories, citizens and denizens; one exists and the other contributes.
You must then separate citizens into 2 categories, populus pluribus and oligarchs; those who have and those who want.
Denizens should be subject to standard tax policies in addition to a prefunded estate tax (cause they will die at some point and we don't know when that is other than account activity) and do not receive subsidies for being below the predefined coin amount. Furthermore why not institute a basic bank policy, balances below value x are penalized. So lets say that we instead penalize accounts below the threshold to avoid wasting coins on essentially useless leeches.
However I suggest that the value be any account below 10 coins.
The issue for me currently is I don't know how many coins are going to be generated so I have to guess really with the numbers but yeah.
Furthermore what should define citizenship should be account activity.
Account activity should be key to citizenship IE you aren't part of the community unless you sent or received coins over the past x cycles.
Citizens should be subject to all previously stated policies as you mention in the OP. However I suggest that the base account should be 100 coins and thus anyone with more than 10 coins and less than 100 will start to gradually move towards 100. This gradual increase itself will not be taxed.
Oligarchs are those who at any point control more than 25% of the coins in circulation will also be subject to demurring on their sends and receives to help the system function and not run out of cash.
^and here is where I ran out of steam.
To be honest after writing this I really feel like the whole exercise is sorta tired. I am just gonna stick with mining bitcoins until this actually comes out and then we may see.

It costs money to mine coins, electricity and hardware are not free. This encourages miners gravitate to the most profitable coins via rankings like Coinchoose.com. If you have a tax then the coin will fall down the profitability rankings and you wont get many miners. The top coins for the day get the bulk of the hash rate.

It's just the way things work atm.

Thinking is good. It leads to creative solutions to pressing problems.