Topic: [ANN] Freicoin: demurrage crypto-currency from the Occupy movement (crowdfund) - page 11. (Read 68048 times)

please help me, I lost all my coin, I have backup my wallet.dat, my hard drive was corrupted, I have to sync my wallet on the new computer, but all my FRC no longer,
//I remember I have creating one new address in the my wallet,

If you want your currency to go anywhere, you're going to need more than the few dozen gesellians. You can have your utopian view of how you can distribute the currency, I won't argue that. What I will point out, again, is that you are not advertising this feature to everybody. And you seemed to have compromised your ideals in an effort to get the currency out sooner, for whatever silly reason.

Well, in fact "help us distribute 80 Millions" has been a way to present the idea to many groups.
The foundation hasn't received many critics outside of the cryptocurrencies community. Many other communities actually complain about the 20% to miners.


Ok, it could be better. You're right, we should improve it.

I have to agree with Etlase2 here, the whole point of bitcoin was to escape a system whereby few have power over all. This attempt at a currency seems to turn bitcoins philosophy on its head.

Me neither. You are using the foundation as an excuse for not wasting effort mining. It's reasonable enough, except that if voting has anything to do with mining, it becomes a complete waste of resources again.


I'll take your word for it even though it took me completely by surprise after discussing the demurrage idea with you over several threads, and even registering on your forums. It still does not excuse the fact that this core idea is completely absent from all of your PR media.


Machinated excuse.


Vigilant people who are wasting tons of resources mining, right?

PS - http://freico.in/how/ this page is about as informative as Solidcoin's.

hi maaku,
if I can help to design republicoin just let me know. I would be very happy if I can help to create republicoin.

Some questions about republicoin:
Should republicoin be another coin, or should it be only used to distribute the foundation money in a p2p way? Or should it later on also be used to distribute the new created coins?

In case of the freicoin foundation, perhaps it is good to mention and link the idea of the freicoin foundation on the main site. And also to mention the goal of the freicoin foundation.

I would offer here my help, but I’m not native English speaking.

Perhaps its good to consider to drop the foundation totally and concentrate on the republicoin concept?
Best regards,
Arcurus

'Should' and 'is' are two very different realities:

http://blockchain.info/charts/miners-operating-profit-margin

You have to take into account that we have different views. Personally I'm not convinced about the proof of stake voting idea (republicon), but many others think it would be the best and I'm open to explore new ideas.
The foundation is not a "last minute change" at all. Although I've been resisting to any alternative to mining distribution since I proposed freicoin until possibly the last months before release, the opposition to mining issuance has been persistent from great part of the community since the beginning, just days after the forum was created, you can check it out. Countless possibilities have been discussed, we have an specialized forum for that and there's more proposals dispersed in other subforums. I would even say that some people left the project because of my resistance against non-p2p solutions.
After many discussions I was convinced myself that although "mining is needed for security" and "miner's profits should tend to zero by competition", everyone else was right: initial issuance through mining is wasteful.
Not destroying energy to create the initial base being a want from the community is not surprising since actually some people are precisely attracted by sustainable investments argument that people like Bernard Lieater or Charles Eisenstein use in favor of demurrage currencies.
And I ended up agreeing, guilty on that. I know there's other people who would like to use a system like republicoin for part of the 5% demurrage too, but I think centralization is only acceptable if it's a one-time-only thing.
Actually I thought that "giving money away to good causes" would be simpler than it seems it will be, but we needed to launch before, because we need a price to calculate the amounts for the grants, and ideally some merchants on board too.
Unfortunately there's no place to look at to know the fiat price of FRC yet, and it's not easily convertible, so almost no merchants.
But one day the foundation will dispense some coins, and it will be good to have many vigilant people to guarantee that the funds are not abused.
Better issuing the coins by resource wasting than by corruption. But mining is only better than that, and there's actually people out there managing resources transparently using participative processes. So why not give it a try ourselves? The anti-corruption button is always there.

jti, you guys have no credibility whatsoever in my eyes. Last minute completely changing the idea of freicoin to give yourselves all kinds of power. Why should anyone care? Does anyone? What was the point of releasing when you did if you weren't ready to implement whatever system you have planned? Worried about missing the boat? Was Indiegogo giving you deadlines? The actions of your team do not make logical sense to me.

I think this is what you were looking for on google: http://freico.in/how/

And as said many times, if maaku buys a yacht with the foundation funds or just if the distribution is not fully published as promised, the community will accept a hard-fork very fast. Please, read my post above for more on the hard-fork.
The way cryptocoins work, it is very easy to audit the foundation's expenditures, since all its funds are public in the block chain for anyone to see.

AFAICT, "republicoin" is just "vote for how we spend the money", not anything actually democratic. It does not appear to me that the foundation idea is going anywhere, yet there is no mention of this cornerstone of the freicoin design. You can P2P vote to your heart's content, and maaku can still buy a yacht with it. Not saying that will happen, but I am tired of shady people trying to swindle others in the name of freedom over this cryptocurrency bullshit.

That's silly, it's better to just work on the fix than to apologize for why it's not done. I'll bring myself up to speed on Republicoin, thanks everyone for your answers.

It is unfortunate that dispelling the idea of being shady crypto banksters is not important to you.

I apologize if this sounds dismissive, but I have only a few hours a week I can devote to Freicoin and I'd rather spend that implementing infrastructure and new features (like republicoin) than handling non-essential PR.

I'm not interested in what Gesellian group-think thinks, I'm interested in why whenever I google freicoin I do not see anything about this foundation or how the currency is being distributed.

You are free to run your currency however you want. But your group keeping this on the down-low makes it seem as if you are ashamed of this feature.

Well we weren't willing to wait, that was our weakness.

However one outcome is to sit on the coins and do nothing except provide a little bit here and there for the most widely popular and necessary grant proposals and infrastructure prizes, but let the rest sit in escrow being eaten away by demurrage. Once a proper p2p mechanism is in place (like republicoin), we could setup a cron job to spend the coins according to the current p2p budget. Indeed this is the default outcome we are currently on, since we are unwilling to spend the coins arbitrarily without community support.

The only thing holding us back from spending these coins via a p2p voting process is that such a process only exists now as an idea. Otherwise we'd be using it! However if you have time to contribute, we could use your help in creating just such a p2p distribution process.

EDIT: @Etlase2, honestly that's only really been a hang-up in the crypto-coin community, but getting it in use by people who don't evalutate it for its speculative value. In our conversations so far (with Gesellian monetary reform groups, for example) it hasn't been an issue.

Wait, wait wait... instead of "republicoin" you guys came up with "give us all the coinscoin" as a half-way compromise? That's pretty insightful.

When are you guys planning on updating the marketing you have on various places around the internet to include _anything_ about this foundation (including the OP of this thread)? The longer you let this slide, the more you look like the shady crypto banksters that your coin blatantly argues you are (the code, not the webpages stating the exact opposite of course).

I didn't get a very good vibe from you early on in freicoin's development, and there still seems to be no reason to assuage it.

That's why I stopped during late beta. You guys had a working 100% p2p currency and some interesting ideas on how to more efficiently distribute it. Then the foundation decided that raising/spending it immediately was more important than equal rules for every participant. For me, that compromise meant giving you guys emergency powers over the supply until a better solution could be found.

I'd be interested in helping with that better solution, but just grabbing everyone's money up front and working out the details later doesn't seem like a fair way to run a monetary system.

The idea of 'republicoin' emerged very late in the beta testing stage, only a month or two from the final release. At the time we were intending to give 100% of the initial distribution to miners, but none of us were completely happy with that result for various reasons including what @Impaler has said above. However proof-of-stake voting on budgets is only an idea at this stage, and one that is not fully fleshed out or tested. We don't know if it will work the way we think it will, with a Nash equilibrium settling in on a reasonable, fair budget compromise, or if tricky users will find ways to gerrymander votes for selfish purposes.

Initial distribution through a Foundation was a half-way compromise. It let us release now and focus on getting the currency widespread adoption, while also buying us time to figure out how to properly distribute those coins. However the hope from the very beginning was that republicoin proof-of-stake voting would be properly tested and implemented before the end of the initial distribution period, at which point we'd transition whatever centralized process we have to a distributed, p2p mechanism for determining what to do with those funds.

We could use your help, and the help of anyone interested in p2p, coercion-less governance by protocol in defining how budgeting and hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake voting will work, writing the code, and testing it out.

While I had some refinements and suggestions the original credit for that idea goes to maaku and is called 'republicoin'.  Also it is a tool for demurrage handling in perpetuity, not an initial distribution tool because it presupposes a wide distribution of coins to begin with to prevent capture of the electoral results.  Current miners are too small of a group and the foundation would with its share basically decide the outcome (if it participated).

Also your points show a misinterpretation of our motivations.  We do not begrudge the rich their wealth (we are not communists), we object to usury aka interest which creates illegitimate revenue streams.  We set up the foundation to see that the initial distribution of the bulk of FRC dose not become an illegitimate revenue stream for individuals who's merit and work consisted merely of being 'first', we reject the BTC communities self-serving belief that 'first' entitles people to any significant wealth from the Seigniorage of cryptographic currency.  People who hold cryptographic currency and try to hype it merely for purposes of self enrichment are engaged in boarder-line fraud and are in my opinion enemies of all legitimate currency be they digital, commodity or Fiat.  Also mere holding of money is not exposing ones self to significant risk and is by our interpretation counter to the purpose of money and actually represents a threat to the success of FRC.  Merchants are on the other-hand the far greater risk takers and are deserving of commensurate rewards and praise.