Topic: * (Read 1902 times)

Sounds like a digital "tragedy of the commons" experiment waiting to happen.

I would recommend BitBar.

Communism has not worked and will never work.

You don't need to involve an exponential function. Let´s say you have a flat x Coin tax per year for every valid address, and  percentage demurrage on top of that. If you can make a lottery of redistribution of the demurrage, even just a draw between all active accounts, you will be able to statistically redistribute from the wealthy few to the many poor (the extreme example is only one winner who gets the whole yearly demurrage). This will imply a loss of anonymity as the standard tx-es function today, which has to be countered in some way to make the coin practicable (maybe with ZeroCoin, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/zerocoin-whitepaper-discussion-is-it-the-first-truly-innovative-alt-coin-202664 )

I never said FRC wouldn't be a store of wealth, this is a common misconception that just because FRC loses 5% it's not a store of wealth, it store 95% of the wealth put into it by itself and when the liquidity premium to sold (by loaning it) the lender will make back the remaining 5% to reach parity.  The key is that FRC is not a SUPERIOR store of value compared to real assets the way normal money is.  And even hard-money dose not store-value, it extracts value from the rest of the economy in the form of rent/interest, their really is no such thing as perfect loss less store-of-value.

As for market manipulation, this is obviously separate from a currencies store of value function because markets are an exchange.  Any scamming, insider-trading and other fraudulent activity that may redistribute wealth is a product of the market place and its lack of reputable actors or enforcement of ethical standards.  No matter WHAT your using as money this can happen, your statement is the equivalent of saying beads are illegitimate because some folks once used them to fraudulently buy Manhattan.  The fraud is outside the money system and the solution to fraud is always going to be likewise outside the money system.

Your terrible confusion of the term 'democracy' for what is nothing more then 'spending power' and 'purchasing preference' is galling.  Democracy has always meant a system of rule by the people, not by the wealthy, if your trying to say that wealth disparity undermines democracy I can agree with that.  But you seem to imply that money-mandated wealth redistribution to flatten disparity is the only answer.

I think you fail to understand how large the wealth redistribution power of the normal money paradigm actually IS, it is alone capable of explaining virtually the entire existing wealth disparity because the interest rate enters into the cost of everything in our economy and ends up being far more then 5% of the goods cost, the bottom 80% pay huge sums every year in indirect interest to the top 10%.

Because you don't recognize this redistribution (or think it to be insignificant) you ascribe wealth disparity to other specious actions of the wealthy like market manipulation or perhaps some vague worker exploitation.   And then in response you propose to create some kind of vast wealth pump in the opposite direction that will robin-hood back the wealth for the poor.  But this is fatally flawed, you would be running two pumps opposite each other and while they might theoretically cancel out each others flows, each is going to create horrible inefficiency. 

Were already suffering under the inefficiencies of the first pump that no one acknowledges exists its called the 'business cycle' and gives us recessions and depressions, chronic unemployment, all the knocks against capitalism that are routine now.   A second pump will create yet more inefficiency, reduced work incentives, corruption all the stuff conservatives use to attack the welfare state.  The correct solution is to just shut off the first wealth pump which will rebalanced wealth while increasing efficiency and being immune to all the standard welfare state criticisms.

no way it'll work.

doesn't work. i'd just split my money into 100 accounts.

I'm a principle member of the Freicoin team and while you say our coin inspires your idea I'd say you've misinterpreted FRC.  Demurrage at 5% per year is something that ELIMINATES re-distribution inherent in hard-money, the redistribution from the poor TO the rich through interest.  All that we want to do is create a fair non redistributive currency.  

If your belief is that their should in fact be redistribution of wealth in the other direction (from rich to poor) then I'd say your going to need the state to do it as the money system has no business doing that job.  If the state dose it then at least people can be involved in a democratic process to decide what the state dose or doesn't do or protest or revolt or what not, ware as money is unaccountable and redistributes stealthily (well hard money redistribution is so ubiquitous today that most people can not or will not recognize it).  Our view at FRC is that any redistribution in a money system interferes with it's one true function as medium of exchange, and this is why you design it to be free of redistribution with demurrage equal to the liquidity premium thus eliminating interest.

So, instead of hoarding...the best way to make money in this system is to have as little money possible. Then when the distribution takes place, sell all but the smallest amount.

Sounds good to me. I will take .00000001 of these coins please.

no, I wouldn't.   We have more than enough involuntary wealth distribution in society already, thanks.

*