Topic: A crypto currency you can't store? (Read 1184 times)

@anti-scam: Understood completely. I apologise for my rude remark - it was impulsive and ill-considered.

Freicoin tried (trying) the same principle. Somehow it wasn't a very popular idea.

I guess I didn't interpret that as a clear statement of your commitment not to pursue making such a coin. I don't even remember responding to one of your posts before this thread so I'm sorry if I come off as an "aggressive little arsebiscuit". I simply wish to see an end to the rampant cryptocurrency inflation caused by altcoin flooding.

First post. Not edited - you can check that.

The whole thing was only to open discussion.

In any case, you are clearly more well-read on this than I am, and also have obviously researched the issue. That's fair enough - I respect your comments, and I can see your point.

Thanks,

Rit.

Clearly stated where? I don't see it.

To save you some time, allow me to explain why demurrage will never work. Let's say we have coin A and coin B. They are both near-exact clones of Litecoin, except coin B automatically imposes a 4.89% annual demurrage rate on all holdings and coin A does not. As an economically rationally individual, what is my incentive to use coin B? There is none. Even if it would be better for the economy as a whole if everyone used coin B, it is incompatible with the individual's incentives and so it has no chance of getting to that point. The only way that demurrage can work is if people are forced to use a demurrage-based currency above others that better preserve their wealth. The moribund state of Freicoin should prove my point.

Is this the second or the third clash we've had? Aggressive little arsebiscuit aren't you? Nevertheless, I'll answer you.

Yes, I am now just becoming aware. I consider it an education, and am happy to learn even a modest amount about it.

Do I still want to go forward? Yes, of course - that's the nature of evolution, both biological and intellectual.

Making my own anyway? No. As clearly stated. I can recommend some really good resources on learning to read, if you need them. Whoever helped you write that, or transcribed it from crayon for you, or whatever, can no doubt help you through your ABCs. Sorry! I accidentally delved into an ADVANCED topic there - perhaps you should start with the basic grunts and hoots.

Understanding of why it is not a good idea....hmm. Well, that's why I started the thread. Some people that very clearly know what they are talking about have commented in some detail, outlining the pros and cons. All of these I accept as an education I am pleased to receive for free. But you....well, you haven't really added anything, have you? If you're under the impression that your mighty intellect is somehow aware of something which could not possibly be more obvious to us unwashed masses, were we not cretins, then good for you! I can pretty much assure you that that view on life won't work out well

So! With that all said (*phew*), thank you again to all of the people who have contributed positively in this thread, and apologies if I came off as a tad frustrated just there.

I'll check out Freicoin - thank you to the guys who suggested it!

Rit.

Freicoin

inflation is not realy good for a coin. sure it is natural, bot not when percents goes up...

So you're just now becoming aware of a basic topic in the economics of currencies after thinking that you had invented it independently but you'd still like to go forward on making your own anyway? Do you understand why that's not a good idea?

Errr. Ever heard of freicoin

So is anyone working on a coin of this type? Seems like it would be a fairly big project - definitely more than cloning another scrypt coin.

If so, I would like to be involved I am no coder or technician, but I can write - might be of some use for docs or tech copy.

Rit.

Just read a little on demurrage. Interesting!

I'd favour a return of the "dead" coins to the supply though. It makes mining viable for a very long time, and mining validates the transactions, so it seems like it would add some long-term interest for the treasure hunters.

I think it'd also help with the coin being adopted, as the perceived disadvantage of not being an early adopter would be much less severe.

Definitely learning by the seat of my pants today, probably picking almost everything up wrong, but this topic is the most interesting conversation I've had all month

Rit.

There is already demurrage, but that just destroys them instead of making them mineable again. Basically backwards Proof of Stake

wow, great post...nice to see one of the heavy hitters weighing into my humble discussion

Yeah, I agree - the blockchain idea in it's current form couldn't handle this type of implementation - it's too close to reversing a transaction. The slider idea is a damn good one though...it could just be implemented as an automated transaction I suppose. However, the downside is that everyone would automatically set it to 10 thousand years or something :/ I guess the way around that is to make the maximum length of time rather small (comparatively). Of course then people would simply make auto-systems to get around that too...which I guess you could solve with a system which enforces interactivity (a captcha would be an over-simplistic example).

Sorry for Tolkien-esque sentence above. Musing out loud.

Times like this I wish I was a cryptographer/coder genius. I'm sure the idea has merit...

Any input appreciated! Including "You're an idiot, Ritual" (which I now know is going to pop up in a post within 30 seconds )

Rit.

This thread actually highlights some of (finite) crypto currencies long-term economic flaws.

For example, in the case of Bitcoin, once all 21 million Bitcoins are in circulation the process of diminishing availability is in fact inevitable.

Most agree that this actually makes the remaining supply of Bitcoins even more valuable for a time i.e. rarity vs scarcity etc. and that you can still ofc spend 0.00001 of a Bitcoin etc.

However, this does eventually become an issue: "You cannot trade in diminishing intangibility", well you can, although not at an ever increasing level of 'value'.

When something finite isn't being produced anymore, eventually their will be nothing left. Fact.

Ironically, it is in fact the finite nature of Bitcoin that actually gives it most of its intrinsic value in the first place.

Yes we can't.  

...


I have also given much thought to this long-term 'problem' and looked at ways to try and avoid this situation without effecting this finite value.

We humans actually cause most of the diminishing availability issues; we loose our wallet passwords, we leave our laptops on the subway, we leave 0.00000001 transaction in wallets that we abandon because they are 'worthless' (which all add up eventually) and sadly we also die, sometimes unexpectedly and without leaving a last will and testament etc., ...

The solution ?

See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/google-death-a-tool-to-take-care-of-your-gmail-when-youre-gone/274934/

"Google has now rolled out a technological solution, a euphemistically titled "Inactive Account Manager" tool ("Control what happens to your account when you stop using Google," the company says, i.e. die)."

This is where the best solution is probably found. A wallet should contain a slider where its owner selects a period of time that determines if coins from the balance have not been spent within X duration and then automatically 'will' the balance to X specified address.

It would also be possible to do this against coin age i.e. something similar to a proof-of-stake mechanism - we can call this a Proof-of-Transaction

Again, if coins have not been spent from the balance within X number of years then the balance would be automatically spent (perhaps distributed as transaction fees over time) and would therefore go back to the miners and back into active circulation. The 'default' value could be set at 100 years.

This is actually very difficult to implement as it is vulnerable to something similar to a time travel attack on the blockchain, as well as numerous other factors.

  

Alright, accepted. That too can be worked around though.

Just create a service that move your coin automatically and that's useless.

I'm pretty sure that someone already did something similar to this. Anyone remember the name of the coin?

You had to at least move your coins (possibly back into your own wallet) once per year to prove that the wallet wasn't lost. If not, your coins would disappear and go back into the general pool to be mined again or something.

@bitaxed: It appears that I am - there's a thing! Not kleptomania though! Never even heard of it before now hehe.

@superresistant: I assure you that I am NOT confusing them. I may have phrased what I wrote a bit simplistically, but I am not that naive. However, neither am I an economist, so perhaps the clarification was fair enough

And wrt to Bitcoin, while I can see what you are saying, the flaw there is that if everyone adopts the same attitude to Bitcoin - i.e. that it's value will increase over time, so HODLing is the best thing to do - then it becomes stagnant, which can only drive the value down.

I'm not trying to defend the idea or lambast Bitcoin, btw - it's just AN idea, put out there for discussion. Even if I come off looking like a total moron in the end, it's still worth it for the education if nothing else

Rit.

You are confusing moving and spending money.
What is the point of moving money from an address to an other ? None.

You are talking about spending money. The best way to force people to spend money is to devalue or stabilise the value. The total opposite of Bitcoin and its clone because on long term their value increase.