You're asking us to either trust you or independently verify that these recieving addresses belong to registered charities. That's a non-trivial cost that doesn't exist with "wasted" heat.
Everybody will be able to see the transactions in the public chain,
100% transparency in this reward. The only way we could cheat is by
lying on what address belongs to what organization.
We could say:
-See? we're giving the money to this address, which belongs to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
But if it didn't belonged to that organization, that organization
would have something to say.
If we cheat with this system it will be easy to catch us, that's the
whole point. If we cheat, it's never too late to go back to the
only-mining hardfork.
And this of course assumes that users are OK with a government having
veto power over acceptable charities - those of us who would donate to
Wikileaks or Defense Distributed might be disappointed.
I don't see why wikileaks could not take funds in the same way. But,
yes, it's centralization, isn't perfect and that's why it's limited
to 3 years.
The only thing that differentiates this system from pure 100% subsidy
is you are requiring us to spend a minimum on state-approved charities
instead of productive for-profit activity, and you are retaining the
right to say when this hoard is released into the money supply
(much like a central bank).
It is for profit activity but it's not productive. Nobody benefits
from having such high currency production costs.
Again, the central issuing is not perfect. We hope to gradually
substitute it with more p2p mechanisms like proof of stake. If 3
years of issuing experimentation cannot give as a fully p2p
alternative to mining, the full 5% demurrage will have to go to
miners.
Miners who value these charities will mine at a "loss" and then you have wasted heat again.
No miners should always mine at a profit or stop their equipment.
Freicoin miners have mined at a profit most of the time, they
periodically mine at a higher profit that bitcoin miners.
How hasn't Bitcoin solved seigniorage? Seigniorage is the difference
between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it.
Since scarce money needs no backing you could maximize seigniorage
and minimize money production costs.
The seigniorage value comes from the people that accept the newly
created currency in exchange for real products. But since that value
will never be explicitly redeemed back by anyone it can be put to
use. Since money is a social agreement, the challenge is to invest
that value back into society, preferably (at least to me) developing
the commons (free software/hardware, free culture...)
Bitcoin does the opposite: it tries to minimize seigniorage (in this
case is profits for the miners) by maximizing money production costs.
It distributes the value by destroying it.
-How do you distribute 4 candies between 5 kids?
-You throw all the candies to the river so they don't fight.
-How do you prevent fires in the forest?
-You kill the forest first.
That's not solving the problem to me.
Right now the value of each Bitcoin block is worth roughly 100% of the
cost to produce and distribute it. The value of each Freicoin block is roughly 500% of the cost to produce and distribute it.
That's the whole point. The ratio cost to produce/value of Freicoin is
20% that of Bitcoin's. Freicoins are produced more efficiently and
the gains derived from this increased efficiency is what must be
distributed by the foundation.
The most important thing is that the value comes from the demand and
not from miners. That demand is explicitly approving the issuance
mechanisms in both cases Bitcoin and Freicoin. There's also demand
for other issuance schemes like xrp, where the marginal cost of
production is zero and 100% of the supply starts in the hands of a
private company.
Believe it or not, there's people that prefer Freicoin's issuance
experiments over btc destruction and xrp privilege, and that's why it
has demand and a market price.