Single point of control... over that limited supply of coins. 80% of the monetary base, yes, but still finite. (1) Once those coins are spent they're gone. (2) Their movement can be tracked by anybody. (3) If anything funny happened, he market would pull the rug out from under us so fast, there'd be no hope of recovery.
When we conceived the idea of the Foundation in its current form, we were just weeks away from release. Our options were (1) release as-is with 100% miner subsidy and the associated opportunity cost; (2) add a simple, hardcoded budgeting system and issue the coins through non-profits; or (3) spend a year or more developing a fair, decentralized voting system for determining what to do with the coins, which may or may not have worked in its first incarnation. We chose the middle path, but for reference the most championed proposal for decentralized, non-mining issuance is described here:
http://www.freicoin.org/demurrage-should-it-all-go-to-miners-t20-40.html#p354
Are the keys to 80% of the eventual monetary base physically in my possession? Yes. Are we asking users to trust us while we figure out how to start a not-for-profit Foundation and do the distribution legally? Yes.
That's a far cry from a centralized protocol like the fiat banking system, or even lesser claims of centralization like the checkpointing systems that existed in PPCoin or SolidCoin.
Would we prefer a secure, decentralized voting mechanism with incentives structured to provide fair and equitable issuance without undue early adopter bias or vote manipulation? Yes. And while we're at it, I'd also like a pony, a million bitcoin, and to know who shot JFK.
Topic: [ANN] Freicoin: demurrage crypto-currency from the Occupy movement (crowdfund) - page 8. (Read 67963 times)
July 30, 2013, 01:52:26 PM
July 30, 2013, 01:02:00 PM
Calling the budgetary requirements “centralization” is a twist of meaning. I wonder what you mean by that phrase? That is to say, if you taboo'd the word, what would you call it instead?
Hold on, he's got a valid point, the "FRC Foundation/you" control the 80% of FRC created...via a single wallet or not is irrelevant. Perhaps not "centralization," but it is certainly a single point of control. What word would you rather we use?
July 30, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
What do you mean by centralization? Let's taboo the word.
A centralized network protocol requires a specific network resource to be online and available in order for the protocol to work. Examples include a trusted timestamping, checkpointing, or routing server. This is the technical meaning that is prescribed to the opposite word "decentralized" as it applies to bitcoin - bitcoin is designed without any centralized network resource, and so among other things can continue to operate even in the face of powerful but not omniscient censorship. The same is true of Freicoin: so long as your blocks include the foundation outputs for the first three years, you will reach consensus with the Freicoin network.
Calling the budgetary requirements “centralization” is a twist of meaning. I wonder what you mean by that phrase? That is to say, if you taboo'd the word, what would you call it instead?
A centralized network protocol requires a specific network resource to be online and available in order for the protocol to work. Examples include a trusted timestamping, checkpointing, or routing server. This is the technical meaning that is prescribed to the opposite word "decentralized" as it applies to bitcoin - bitcoin is designed without any centralized network resource, and so among other things can continue to operate even in the face of powerful but not omniscient censorship. The same is true of Freicoin: so long as your blocks include the foundation outputs for the first three years, you will reach consensus with the Freicoin network.
Calling the budgetary requirements “centralization” is a twist of meaning. I wonder what you mean by that phrase? That is to say, if you taboo'd the word, what would you call it instead?
July 30, 2013, 11:35:12 AM
“Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
Peer-to-peer was, and unless you have equal rules for all participants it is not peer-to-peer. So yes, provably fair was never in the initial plans... it's just the only way to restore that plan.No aspect of the protocol is centralized. None. Zero. Zilch. This whole initial distribution thing happens outside of the freicoin/bitcoin protocol.
So the protocol doesn't require 80% of new coins go to a specific address under your control? I was under the impression (incredibly sorry if mistaken!) that miners who tried to opt out of the seigniorage would be rejected by other nodes.
If the 80% seigniorage is completely optional and can be configured client-side, my whole argument is invalid.
July 30, 2013, 10:04:27 AM
“Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
Peer-to-peer was, and unless you have equal rules for all participants it is not peer-to-peer. So yes, provably fair was never in the initial plans... it's just the only way to restore that plan.No aspect of the protocol is centralized. None. Zero. Zilch. This whole initial distribution thing happens outside of the freicoin/bitcoin protocol.
July 30, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
“Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
Peer-to-peer was, and unless you have equal rules for all participants it is not peer-to-peer. So yes, provably fair was never in the initial plans... it's just the only way to restore that plan.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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
Quote
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.
No offense, but I heard the exact same thing from RealSolid of SolidCoin. There is demand for every single alt coin here. experiments over btc destruction and xrp privilege, and that's why it
has demand and a market price.
July 30, 2013, 06:12:02 AM
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
July 29, 2013, 06:01:47 PM
I'm not sure what "perfectly" fair is either, but a provably fair system would be one in which all participants can prove that the 80% coins were handled according to strict rules without having to trust anyone. 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.
We have better things to do with our time than come up with a cryptographically secure distribution method that's only going to see use once. “Provably fair” was never a design requirement.
July 29, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
2) I can't think of any way to poll "the community" fairly, in a way that includes everyone, and you certainly didn't think of a way to do so before adopting this centralization aspect in the first place. How do you know who is and isn't a sock puppet? Do you expect people to trust you, or to audit your entire distribution process? There's only one provably fair way to distribute this hoard - to destroy it.
The first mechanism will be transparent donations in Freicoin and Bitcoin to registered non-profits. The Foundation will issue some freicoins to match those donations in proportion to what they have received.
This can be transparent, clean and productive. More than mining in all these three aspects.
People will vote with their pockets. It's not "perfectly fair" (whatever that means) but it's fair enough for most of us.
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 think you'll find that every new rule you make is "fair enough" when you only ask people who have not yet left the project; it's an echo chamber.
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). Miners who value these charities will mine at a "loss" and then you have wasted heat again.
Any time someone criticises this money grab, you put the burden on them to solve the problem you created.
No, I tell them to propose new issuance mechanisms and discuss the current proposals.Seigniorage is a problem we haven't created (it's much older than us)
and Bitcoin hasn't solved by destroying real resources in a sterile
attempt to mimic gold. But this technology gives the opportunity to
use it for the commons and positive things instead of financing states and
wars like other times, or just produce more heat like Bitcoin.
July 29, 2013, 10:32:33 AM
1) I'm not certain that the amount of energy spent is directly proportional to mining revenue, because Freicoin is merge-mineable with Bitcoin. If Freicoin hash power is much less elastic (relative to Freicoin mining revenue) than it is with Bitcoin, then you're making Freicoin more vulnerable to swings in Bitcoin price (which are arguably caused by deflation). This is because the decision to mine or not mine SHA256 depends more on what the merge-mined Bitcoins are worth than the price of Freicoin.
First things are valued, then producers (looking at prices) calculate costs and decide to produce or not.
To merge mine or not to merge mine only affects security, but the economics are the same:
miner's profits + capital costs + energy costs = revenue
Of course this is not a universal law, one part tends to equal the other and miner's profits should tend to zero, but those things happen only in perfect markets not real ones...
In the same way, the 80% issuance doesn't make mining unprofitable (that's dynamically adjusted), it only hires less security.
Without merged mining you will cap the security you have, with merged mining, Freicoin could be as secure as Bitcoin more or less independently of its price.
2) I can't think of any way to poll "the community" fairly, in a way that includes everyone, and you certainly didn't think of a way to do so before adopting this centralization aspect in the first place. How do you know who is and isn't a sock puppet? Do you expect people to trust you, or to audit your entire distribution process? There's only one provably fair way to distribute this hoard - to destroy it.
The first mechanism will be transparent donations in Freicoin and Bitcoin to registered non-profits. The Foundation will issue some freicoins to match those donations in proportion to what they have received.
This can be transparent, clean and productive. More than mining in all these three aspects.
People will vote with their pockets. It's not "perfectly fair" (whatever that means) but it's fair enough for most of us.
Any time someone criticises this money grab, you put the burden on them to solve the problem you created.
No, I tell them to propose new issuance mechanisms and discuss the current proposals.
Seigniorage is a problem we haven't created (it's much older than us)
and Bitcoin hasn't solved by destroying real resources in a sterile
attempt to mimic gold. But this technology gives the opportunity to
use it for the commons and positive things instead of financing states and
wars like other times, or just produce more heat like Bitcoin.
July 29, 2013, 09:56:11 AM
More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.
No, the notion is to avoid a huge waste of energy by issuing that money through mining.
The foundation doesn't wants to decide how to spend the money directly, that's why the community is proposing several alternatives to distribute the coins without wasting energy and without "central decisions" by the foundation. Ideas like curecoin (cure cancer instead of mindless hashing for issuance) or increasing voluntary donations in a crowdfunding platform.
The point of the proposals is to take responsibility out of the foundation and back to the community and individual decisions.
Please, post your own alternative to mining if you have any idea.
I've been thinking more about this problem:
1) I'm not certain that the amount of energy spent is directly proportional to mining revenue, because Freicoin is merge-mineable with Bitcoin. If Freicoin hash power is much less elastic (relative to Freicoin mining revenue) than it is with Bitcoin, then you're making Freicoin more vulnerable to swings in Bitcoin price (which are arguably caused by deflation). This is because the decision to mine or not mine SHA256 depends more on what the merge-mined Bitcoins are worth than the price of Freicoin.
2) I can't think of any way to poll "the community" fairly, in a way that includes everyone, and you certainly didn't think of a way to do so before adopting this centralization aspect in the first place. How do you know who is and isn't a sock puppet? Do you expect people to trust you, or to audit your entire distribution process? There's only one provably fair way to distribute this hoard - to destroy it.
Any time someone criticises this money grab, you put the burden on them to solve the problem you created.
July 28, 2013, 06:49:36 PM
At the current state there won't be an alternative to mining, aight? But if mining continues as slow as it is, there will be more energy efficient miners to do that necessary job...
May 18, 2013, 11:55:26 AM
More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.
No, the notion is to avoid a huge waste of energy by issuing that money through mining.
The foundation doesn't wants to decide how to spend the money directly, that's why the community is proposing several alternatives to distribute the coins without wasting energy and without "central decisions" by the foundation. Ideas like curecoin (cure cancer instead of mindless hashing for issuance) or increasing voluntary donations in a crowdfunding platform.
The point of the proposals is to take responsibility out of the foundation and back to the community and individual decisions.
Please, post your own alternative to mining if you have any idea.
May 18, 2013, 09:19:59 AM
Look, this coin languishes because of the same reasons the "Occupy" movement died. Don't mis-understand me, I believe in Gesell's work and agree with the philosophy behind Freigeld but three or four serious people in a group of thousands of derelicts will never produce lasting or meaningful results.
Let me ask, what did Occupy accomplish? Before you tell me that it showed the world "we're not going to take it anymore," ask yourself, "take what?" The Occupy movement was headline news when it began, full of radical thinkers and youth seemingly bent on changing the world for the better, oh if only everyone loved everyone and respected human nature! If only the evil-corporate monopolies would see that the people REALLY want to live in abject squalor and stop raping the planet to produce consumer goods right? Funny, there were not a lot of Occupy movements in India, Africa, or South America--was that because of localized governmental control or because the people there couldn't expend time/effort to pitch a tent and bitch about getting more things for free?
This coin and its "foundation" are similar. Stage a digital version of the movement, fire people up with thinly-veiled political double-speak socialism under the guise that, 'ITS TIME TO DO SOMETHING!" Alas, who's listening? I feel that most people have realized that Occupy is/was not a world-changing movement. Throngs of unwashed, uninformed, and ignorant campers with drum circles and protest signs can't change the world anymore--its too big and complex now. Interesting to think that all of the iPhones/HandiCams, Tents, Water bottles, bullhorns, cardstock for signs, and even sharpie markers are products of the society Occupy complains so vehemently against.
More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.
Let me ask, what did Occupy accomplish? Before you tell me that it showed the world "we're not going to take it anymore," ask yourself, "take what?" The Occupy movement was headline news when it began, full of radical thinkers and youth seemingly bent on changing the world for the better, oh if only everyone loved everyone and respected human nature! If only the evil-corporate monopolies would see that the people REALLY want to live in abject squalor and stop raping the planet to produce consumer goods right? Funny, there were not a lot of Occupy movements in India, Africa, or South America--was that because of localized governmental control or because the people there couldn't expend time/effort to pitch a tent and bitch about getting more things for free?
This coin and its "foundation" are similar. Stage a digital version of the movement, fire people up with thinly-veiled political double-speak socialism under the guise that, 'ITS TIME TO DO SOMETHING!" Alas, who's listening? I feel that most people have realized that Occupy is/was not a world-changing movement. Throngs of unwashed, uninformed, and ignorant campers with drum circles and protest signs can't change the world anymore--its too big and complex now. Interesting to think that all of the iPhones/HandiCams, Tents, Water bottles, bullhorns, cardstock for signs, and even sharpie markers are products of the society Occupy complains so vehemently against.
More interesting to think that this coin, with nearly 80% of its production being held by one person could be considered a coin for the masses--but then it came to me. Gesell thought one should earn according to his ability. FRC's "foundation" is doing just that. While opining about the need for social change, the foundation is quietly amassing huge wealth under the notion that "they" are best to decide how it's used and spent. Strange...that sounds just like the current rash of premine and scam-coins only its ongoing and since its "to further the movement," the sheeple don't bother to dig any deeper.
May 18, 2013, 08:57:57 AM
Yea, I really dislike the idea of a "foundation" in both this currency and devcoin (I think? If I'm understanding it right that is...)
Who's to say the foundation doesn't just cashout all of their freicoins into another currency?
Who's to say the foundation doesn't just cashout all of their freicoins into another currency?
You are. Foundation coins will only be spent as part of a community vetted process. You can join the conversation at freicoin.org.
I spoke out against centralization earlier in the project and my voice was drowned out by louder voices in favor. It's like arguing about a Wikipedia article.If you really like Freicoin EXCEPT for the foundation, you'll have an easier time just forking it. If I wanted to argue about how my own money was spent on my behalf, I'd go to city hall.
Or you can just simply refuse to mine it and avoid city hall, the whole debate and leave others to do the heavy lifting right?
May 18, 2013, 08:43:44 AM
Is there any reason to believe that the ROI, when measured in BTC, won't be negative?
No, not at all. Here's how it will work:
- collect lots of $$$$$ from donations
- release the shitcoin and mine it for some time to collect lots of freicoins
- release promotional materials to create demand for freicoins
- dump freicoins and disappear
Ummm still not seeing this happen... were you wrong?
May 18, 2013, 08:13:09 AM
Please close this thread it's retarded.
Really? What a Moron.
May 07, 2013, 11:25:04 AM
Any news about Republicoin?
The current development timeline is:
1. New difficulty adjustment algorithm.
2. Freicoin Assets
3. Republicoin
Since it's pretty much just me doing development, these are progressing serially. So no, not much work has gone into Republicoin yet. I welcome contributions (ideas or code) from anyone else though.
May 07, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
Marxisms 'surplus value' is not interest by any stretch.
I argued elsewhere that in a sane and honest economy, interest would always be backed by the dividends of a company, they'd essentially be the same. It's only that there are lots of arbitrators in-between today that create the same fog you mentioned, most importantly the state.
Marx's surplus value is the profit of a company which the workers are deprived of, and which they have no control of. The profit of a company is expressed in dividends. No matter if the company borrowed capital or built upon their own savings, the dividends will flow back into the economy in one way or another (mostly to their bank, either to satisfy the interest on the loan, or as savings that the bank in-turn would loan to someone else). That's why interest rates are one the most important statistic parameters in an honest market economy. There can be no other source of interest in an honest economy! Something cannot come out of nothing!
Gesell sees through this fog and identifies hard money as the source of interest with interest defined in terms of being able to RENT, and interest then causes the manifest ill effects like unemployment, the waste of capitol in the business cycle etc etc.
I agree hard money is the source of interest. There's no reason there couldn't also be 'soft' money (trust-based promises/credit created on the spot by the people) in parallel, as it happens with LETSs. Freigeld might be somewhere in-between, it may serve certain purposes, but I only see it on a local level.
In a hard money economy, business cycles would happen when nominal prices don't react and drop fast enough, as well as nominal (not real!) wages. Often that's because there's a lot of bureaucracy in the way still rooted in the industrial age.
As for 'real' socialism, I see no reason it would actually need to utilize any such labor theory. Socialism has always been understood to mean 'control of the workplace and means of production by the workers', now how the workers exercise that control is wide open and in no way need it conform to some blatantly erroneous theory.
If there is no competition (there's a call for world-wide solidarity in communism, hence "Die Internationale"), labor theory would apply. In fact the usual argument is that the difference between the labor and the market value is what is stolen from the worker and measures the exploitation. (I do not agree because I'm not a communist. And of course worker co-operatives may also be free to compete and democratically decide what to do with the profits, so there'd be markets. Maybe Techno-Marxists like the Zeitgeist people would see this kind of competition as inefficient. But they're just pipe-dreaming imho.)
May 07, 2013, 07:50:35 AM
I'd make a NovaCoin-like (PoS/Scrypt) fork of Freicoin (+demurrage) if I knew C++.
Any news about Republicoin?
Any news about Republicoin?