Topic: [ANNOUNCE] The Proposal for EnCoin - page 2. (Read 9455 times)

I'll sell you 10,000 now from the initial pre-mine. Just send $10,000 to... Wait, you are right. You deserve a pre-adopter discount so you can get some serious return on your investment. Just send $8,000 to me!

Please just get this started already. Too much thinking no doing around here.

Cannot wait to buy 10 000 EnCoins then dump them ASAP as price rises. Please hurry up ! Thanks !

Keeping the "value" stable over significant periods of time.


Right I'm not too worried about the details of how it changes, just how to adjust based on missing the expected curve. But I didn't think about doubling the difficulty and doubling the ENC, it's so simple that it passed me by apparently. We get it down to 2 ENC per block so that there is a baseline of the current, most efficient machines in the 50W range. Then we have a new baseline for bringing it back up again. If difficulty was the same at 75W as it is at 50W, then we know people have been cheating (or some other world circumstances have changed--or hardware has a new lower range on wattage output). Then we 3x the difficulty and 3x the award back to 6 and do it again. Damn, this might just work. The implications this might have on the network could be a bit tough to figure out though. More thought required.

But essentially, if common hardware uses only 50W in the future, when tripling it back up to 6, earning blocks will take 3x as long. It doesn't matter if it's 50W--it will be whatever equivalent is most efficiently possible to keep a reasonable profit and stable prices.


same difference! A baker doesn't care about the customer's cost to acquire a gold coin either, he cares about its trade value.


What do you think about my post on giving interest?

I'm not exactly sure what you are tying to fix?

But my first guess you are trying to smooth out the function so that it does not change so dramatically by doubling in difficulty at 18 month boundaries. If that is the case, you want to reduce the ENC awards per block say every month, so you have an 18 step smooth exponential curve from 2 to 1. Then at 18 month intervals, you both double the difficult and double the ENC award/block and start down the curve again.

I can't give you the exact values for this because I forget how to calculate with logarithms. But in effect if you had Log base 2 graph paper. You plot one point at 1 on the bottom left, 2 at the top right and draw a line between them. Then you divide the line  into 18 intervals and read the intercepts. That is the old school, before calculators way.

So the answer is, if I understood the correct question, there is an easy answer that I don't know, but could probably look up.
If you are asking, "What if it MHash electrical efficiency doesn't follow koomey's law?" Then I really don't have any answer at all.



Honestly, I never bought that premise. I think (absent a currency exchange) the baker never sets prices based upon electrical costs. Instead he bases them on the cost of flour, eggs, rent, etc. delimited in ENC. He doesn't care what his customer's cost to acquire that coin was. The baker cares about the trade value of the coin when he goes to spend it.

The next version of the proposal already has bits of a first section that goes into this market effect because nobody really got it. I understand that it wasn't clear now. So yes, the first section is basically all just economy and why I think the system will work.


We've established this. Now HELP ME TRY TO FIX IT! If we establish a baseline of 150W instead of 200W and a gradual decrease in the award from 6 ENC to 2 ENC, the baseline goes from 150W to 50W. If the difficulty doesn't increase on the order of koomey's law, then the people are adjusting lower because technology is not keeping up. But once we hit whatever the final award is, 1 or 2 ENC, we can no longer adjust lower, only higher. Could this somehow be based on a year-to-year system? I wonder. -- Though in trying to keep coin production down in a stable economy, there might be very few miners at times from which to draw conclusions. This could lead to mistakes.


I really don't think it does. I even mentioned this concept in one of the Q&As (on ukraine electricity). If I want to trade 1 ENC for a loaf of bread to the baker, the baker has some idea of what it took to make that ENC, just like he has a good idea of what it took to make his bread. Bakers in ukraine charge more because electricity is cheaper. Bakers in western Europe charge less because electricity is more expensive. Obviously there is little way of knowing if the coin was made in france or ukraine, but there are costs involved in that transport such as currency conversions.


I don't know how it will work out either. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm not saying koomey's law is the perfect final solution. But I'm saying koomey's law is perfect way for the proposal to introduce people to your concept. It is well known, and it makes a good concrete example of canceling a known tendency with a known function to create your proposed constant. No hand waving is involved. That is what you want at the beginning of a proposal. It is like an establishing shot in a movie. It helps people suspend their disbelief.

But it's fine to say "koomey's law[1]" and refer to a footnote that says, "See section 10.5 for a discussion of koomey's law and other possible alternatives for maintaining this constant."



I'm not missing it. I'm not disregarding anything you are saying. Certainly, the price will never get too the lowest cost minter's cost. But that is the whole system's limiting condition.

I'm using the phrase "tends to" in the mathematical sense, as with Big O notation. "The time it takes to solve the proof-of-work based upon  difficulty (D) tends toward O(2^n). Sure that's not exactly right. The exact calculation would be: POW time = setup time + (time for one hash) * 2^(D-1) + completion time. But that just obfuscates the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I'm saying this is the best way to introduce the topic so unfamiliar people can grasp the system's dynamics. You can certainly put "electrically efficient minter[2]" and a footnote, "See section 10.6 on hashing speed vs hashing efficiency and how these effect total coins minted and the potential ROI of each minted coin.


I'm not saying your intentions weren't correct. I'm saying your execution confused me repeatedly.

(addition)
By the way, ROI in the absence of a $/ENC exchange becomes a much more nebulous concept. Sure nothing really changes, someone spends $1 in electricity but takes their ROI in 1.3 loaves of bread. But I would certainly leave that discussion to a later section.

Quite frankly, given your target audience, I don't think you are going to have any trouble convincing people to mint. They are already used to paying high electrical bills in hopes of higher future payback. In the absence of an exchange, I don't think the early minters/merchants would have a problem trading among themselves at (1 ENC = 1 loaf of bread). Then when an exchange appears, pricing their coins for sale at (1 ENC = 1.3 loaf of bread = $1.30), to those who don't want to mint. Over time, those two prices will tend to converge toward a single market price.

But even accepting all of that, I still have trouble wrapping my head around the ROI dynamics of that final single market place. I'm sure it is describable. I'm just suggesting it is not where initial discussion of your concept should start.

I don't want to use a constant like koomey's law. I'd prefer to figure out a way to lower the award instead somehow. And raise it if necessary. I'm trying to think of a way to do it based on an algorithm that could determine how profitable it is. Or something. I don't know yet.


You're missing the ROI again (and the difficulty in time). Nobody is minting for free. People who pay 10-15c/kwh will not likely be able to supply all demand. The cost per kwh is a much bigger factor than how much kwh was actually used. If 75% produces at 11kwh and 25% produces at 9kwh, we have an average CTP of 10.5kwh PLUS 33% ROI (it may be higher, who knows, there aren't early adopters selling off) or 13.96kwh. That means someone can mint for 12kwh and still make a small profit. But the market (and the people) all has to determine this.


This is why I used "about", "approximately", and "based on" throughout the proposal anytime 10kwh or 200W was mentioned.


Well, it was a lead-in to the very next paragraph explaining a way that could help solve it, after all. Although at the time I didn't realize that specific scenario wasn't possible with the way coins are distributed.

I'm going to respond to this tonight because I read this post earlier and I've been thinking about it already. I'll respond to the others later.

OK, I get what you are trying to say. (I Hope!) To paraphrase:

---
Each minter uses the same proof-of-work difficulty for minting.
As such, the value of ENC will tend toward the electrical consumption of the most electrically efficient minter. (MHash/ws)
Left alone, this electrical consumption would tend to decrease over time according to Koomey's law.
To return ENC minting to its original electrical consumption constant,
EnCoin offsets Koomey's law by doubling the proof-of-work difficulty every 1.57 years.
---

This makes total sense to me. I completely agree with this statement. I really hope it is what you have been trying to say.

Now a little needless bitching.


The part that needlessly confused me for two weeks was your use of averaging. While it is true that if one guy mints coins for 8 kwh and another mints coins for 10 kwh, the average amount of electrical consumption is 9 kwh. You seemed to also be saying that the sell price and value of each coin will reflect this 9 kwh average.

That seems ill conceived. In a marketplace, all the lowest price ENC sells first. Higher prices might not sell at all. Thus prices would tend toward the lowest cost, not the average cost.

I know now that is not what you were attempting to say. You were trying to say the more general, "If peers use more electricity prices will be higher. If they use less, prices will be lower." The use of specific numbers made it seem you were proposing precise targets.



This goes down as the worst sentence of the entire proposal! It made me think you were dismissing the likelihood of electrical efficiency increasing. All the talk about sunk costs, and the expense of upgrading made it seem like you were framing changes in overall efficiency as implausible. Having zero discussion of how you methodically change the difficulty level made everything seem even more hand wavy. "If in the unlikely chance that technology improves, we'll fix things by voting to change the difficulty." it was not very inspiring.

---

But anyway, I now understand the main trust of your proposal. (I hope.)

Perhaps my suggestion for phrasing it with help make your proposal easier for other doubters like me to wrap their head around.

I mentioned in another post that I'm really not so worried about inflation anymore. This isn't going to be bitcoin where so much interest is generated on trying to make a profit off of latecomers. REAL speculators could come in, see that it is obvious that the coins are selling for less than what they cost to produce. Buy them up, hoard, and wait for the economy to grow again. If nobody is minting, could a possible incentive be to redistribute transaction fees (ones that actually got burned, not the ones that merchants get refunded) based on the percentage of coins owned? Would it ever make up a significant amount of money to incentivize hoarding? Is incentivizing hoarding in this way bad for the economy during inflation? It wouldn't seem that way. We want circulation to go down, right? Isn't that the same as burning coins in the short term? And then in the long term, those coins don't need to be remade.

Should burned transaction fees always be redistributed this way? It creates another incentive for demand. And this could potentially counteract the reduced cost to produce of an ENC in the future.

Wow. Is this the solution?

edit:
Ran a quick scenario, 50k savers with an average of 1k enc each, 50k spenders with 500 enc each putting 0.10 enc each in fees into the economy a day
Assuming 75% of these fees are refunded to the merchants, a 1k savings will earn you 6 enc a year, or 0.6%. Not that bad considering price inflation should be at a minimum.

This already would happen in my proposal. The newer GPUs oust the older. The older will still be profitable for a time, but the difficulty will increase as more and more new GPUs are added to the pool, eventually weeding out the old. The new GPUs can either take the coins while they have the opportunity, or make less coins and keep the difficulty down. But eventually, people are going to see the opportunity and make more coins, especially if there's an expansion.


But then it costs money to maintain this stable state, does it not? Minters are paying to receive their transaction fee back. What are we using to determine this stable price? Do we use the original cost to produce?
How do we determine how money initially enters the economy? --this has a big effect on what would be considered stable, imo.


Aren't we burning the picture of burnt wheat here to return to stability? I came up with a solution to solve this, and you are reintroducing it.


But why are these arbitragers doing this when it's over valued? When is it considered over valued? How do you separate these arbitragers from the rest of the population? How do you think you can keep it a secret (if this is still what you're basing this on) that the arbitragers are doing this for exceptionally small amounts? Do you think, for example, awarding 10 or 12 ENC for the highest levels of reputation would suit this purpose? But this is obvious, and likely it will make people angry. If all the motive here is to sell, what is to prevent them from using this ability to "arbitrage" during times of stability? Your answer is increased difficulty. But that brings me back to the question of what determines stability. Since "the people" don't decide when to arbitrage, the "arbitragers" decide what stability is. And the funny thing is is that they could arbitrage themselves a lot of money, raise the difficulty so that it isn't profitable to refund transaction fees, and then sell when demand is high. And they create a never ending cash flow straight to their pockets. I see ripe potential for abuse.


Again, define stability. In my system, 1 ENC equals the average price the minting world pays for the electricity (AND associated costs) to mint 1 ENC. It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only problem is you can't be sure 1 ENC costs the same to make in 2022 as it did in 2012.

Instead of koomey's law or any other constant, what I think is worth discussing is changing the award with some kind of modifier. This would actually work for my deflationary scenario that I talked about earlier (extending the 6 hours to 8 or 10 hours). If more coins are required, more people are required to produce them. In 15 years, if you only get 3 ENC for a block instead of 6, you make sure you're using 100W instead of 200W or you're minting for a loss (unless the price of electricity has halved [adjusted for inflation]). So twice as many people are required to mint the same number of coins, BUT for the same amount of electricity. If demand is not high, then twice as many people do not need to mint coins. I have to think more on this. Think there are any equations or algorithms that could possibly determine when to change the awards?

So, given the above post about electrical efficiency.

In any system where stable coin value is a priority, (Exchange or no-exchange) as coin values approach stability, electrical efficiency becomes exponentially more important. If coins trade within 1% of minting cost, and I can mint for 2% less than you. Then I can mint and your can't. This is not so much a competition as an unavoidable axiom. (The efficient drives out the less efficient.)


Since I can't remove the axiom I'm attempting to use it as a feature.

The most electrically efficient state of the system, is where NO ONE has incentive to mint at all. This does not effect continuity of the network. Merchants continue to make money, clients continue to see the efficiency of the system as a personal benefit. It just means arbitragers don't mint, don't make profit, and don't extract value from the system in anyway.

Optimally, this would be the stable currency state. No new coins are required. No minting is done. No arbitraging is done.
However, I couldn't get my system this optimal. Maybe it is possible but I haven't notice that solution yet.

In the -1, 0, +1 system I proposed, in the stable state, some minting is required. However, it is collaborative (like you are proposing) and it does NOT involve arbitragers. In the stable state, only people with transactions will attempt to mint. If enough people attempt to mint, EVERYONE's tax is refunded. This is in effect a consensus vote that coin values are stable. It requires the combined tax rebate pool to spend only 1/2 the number of hashes as it would take arbitragers to create new coins.

The under valued state is the most efficient in my proposed system. If coin values are below stable values, nobody will mint at all. This serves two functions. Most importantly, it represents a consensus vote that coins are undervalued. Second, it removes all excess overhead from the system when overhead is the biggest hinderance to coin value recovery.

The over valued state is the only time Arbitragers attempt to mint at all. For maximum savings (to the system as a whole) arbitragers should mint as quickly and efficiently as possible. So if the most efficient minter can bring the value immediately back to stable himself that is optimal. If that is not possible other less efficient minters can step in to lend a hand.



The goal is that no monopoly of minters be allowed to drive the prices away from stability. (Tending prices toward zero or toward infinity.) That is how to best judge what I suggest. If we can show multiple solutions meet this goal, they can be ranked by how far they allow the stable prices to shift when drastic economy changes occur.

No, what you did is misinterpret what I said and continually beat the shit out of a concept I did not propose. Even in the face of my correcting you.


I later clarified in the first thread that "price" meant "cost to produce."



Is there somewhere in that equation that says 1 ENC != 5kwh based on 100Wh per person? It was an assumption that need not be true for the system to function exactly the same except for the market price.

In revision 3, I more specifically pointed this out:


Now, the real problem:


In this thread especially I pointed out that someone with their big bad brand new GPU is going to be making more coins than average; possibly much more. As people gradually upgrade their hardware, this will level out again and the difficulty is increased to match.

You can't get the minting base to agree to run at half power (it will be obvious to anyone with a comparable piece of hardware--they will profit much more than the deceptors, and difficulty will rise). You can't have super secret hardware that nobody knows about. And even if nobody knows about it, it has a negligible effect on the economy.

You can't pretend unsunk costs don't exist for practicably useless hardware to prove your point. Part of the benefit of the GPU is that you already have one! And people are always upgrading them for reasons much more important than making coins. Fixed hardware is just not going to keep up unless it somehow drops like a rock in cost.

BUT if that big bad new GPU uses only 100W when all the prior coins have been created at 200W, then and only then is there a real problem. And I proposed a semi-solution to this:


In thinking more on this, the only real way to do this is to increase difficulty for no reason. The amount of coins can't be controlled this way (I suppose if they were on a 10 minute timer they could, there are other options to explore). So "koomey's law" would probably have to be used for gradually increasing difficulty over time (1.57 years to double computations per kwh) if it doesn't increase by this much at least naturally. Since the idea of a constant generally sucks, imo, I think at some point down the road developers may have to intervene. Nobody can predict the future based on the past.

The price of electricity could rise faster than inflation, or it could lower in the case of a new source of energy. Computations/kwh may double every 1.57 years forever, or they may hit a ceiling. Without a doubt they will go through slow periods. None of this can be accounted for now. So in that sense, the proposal is a failure. But throwing ridiculous scenarios at it to disprove 1 ENC = 10kwh does not help or solve anything, especially considering I already more than accepted this.

At this rate, this is going nowhere soon. Please use CPU only algorithm like scrypt etc.

I realize now, that your goal is a variant of satoshi's. Create a coin that can be used in the absence of any exchanges. EXCEPT unlike BTC, you want ENC to be stable in value. Yes, this should have been obvious to me from the beginning. Let me explain why it was not.

Your initial premise was:
1) If coins creation could be made dependent on the consumption of a fixed amount of electricity, THEN (logical implication) coins would have a stable value absent any exchanges.

Yes, I recognized from the beginning that this statement is logically true. That implication does indeed hold. However, I recognized immediately that the antecedent "could be made dependent" was actually, False. While that does not disprove the consequent it doesn't help prove it either.

That was when I asked if you meant ENC = $ = KWH. Whatever your answer was, I interpreted it to be "close enough!"

So I substituted the original implication with:
2) If coins creation could be made dependent on the price of electricity, THEN (logical implication) coins could have a stable value. However, that *will require* an active ENC to $ exchange.


My substitution of premise (2) for (1) is the root of almost every argument we've had. In reality both assertions (1) and (2) are logically true. And in both, the truth of their consequent comes down to the truth of the statement "could be made dependent".

So the real question comes down to:
What made me "recognize immediately" that "could be made dependent" in (1) was False?

Well, technically, it is not false. If you made peer participation dependent on purchasing a specially made, tamper proof, efficiency matched, processing box that was cryptographically signed by a trusted supplier. Then you could assure that 1 ENC required 10 kwh. I dismissed solution out of hand, because it conflicted in philosophy with everything you wrote. But absent that, there is no way to remotely detect a processor's electrical consumption rate.


Everything in bitcoin is based around remotely monitoring (MHash/s). Hashes are monitored by knowing the difficulty level (2^(D-1)). Seconds are monitored by averaging block creation intervals. This gives you an accurate ratio, that you can use to recalculate difficult based upon a target interval of 10 min.

Note however, that monitoring the block interval accurately requires you to prevent parties from lying about block creation times. That is why bitcoin is winner take all. It prevents even collaborative lying. With block chains, the shortest intervals (most blocks) trump the longer intervals (fewer blocks). All of that is really about monitoring time.


Combined electrical efficiency (MHash/ws) cannot be monitored. You still understand Hashes. You can divide the number of blocks created (non-competitively, in a given interval), by the interval time. That give you a slightly sloppier measurement for seconds. But even given these, you have no way to monitor watt consumption (hence your 200W constant).

Side note: You proposed that block creation could cross PB intervals. That means you lose the ability to monitor seconds at all.

But even if you accept the above measurement of (MHash/ws) as being useful, changing difficulty (Hashes) does nothing to affect electrical efficiency (200W constant). You can only effect seconds. This leads to my example of the more electrically efficient driving out the less electrically efficient.

So, I presumed the (1) premise could not be yours, because the only solution to its antecedent was one you would completely oppose.

That is why I began thinking about (2) as the premise you were having trouble conveying to me. Really, it was nothing personal. I was just trying to figure out how you solved (what I called) the more important problems, that come later.

I'm going to respond in detail to your questions but I have limited time today. It is the first Friday of the month and I go to my local 2600 meeting. I just mention this so that you know if I disappear, I'll be back tomorrow.

Second I want to start of with a little preamble to say, I'm going to call some things "my ideas" but only to distinguish the concept from previous things we've talked about. However, I don't personally consider any of these things "my" ideas. You claimed, "it was possible" to do these things, I just presumed your were correct. My goal was/is to understand how you are correct.

So in pursuing my personal understanding of your correctness, I obviously disregarded anything you said that I already knew to be a false path. I just presumed it was miscommunication on your part or misunderstanding on my part. I then asked questions and tossed the concepts around in my head until I could figure out what your path really was. I hate it when somebody claims to know something is provably true, when I can't prove it to be true. I'd long given up on proving this was possible. I never proved it was impossible. It seemed possible. But I never noticed a plausible path to proving it was possible. As such, if we manage to prove stable money as being possible, I claim that it is just the natural termination to the path you started down. Hence, "your" idea.

You said coins would be competed for every 10 minutes.


While I realize the overall sense of the proposal is very idealistic, there is nothing wrong with this. If ENC becomes a stable medium of exchange, dollars do not need to leave the system in greater number than the value those dollars produced. You are selling someone a token of value that remains relatively constant. This 1 token can be used over and over again. Yes I realize tx fees eat into that, but since my enlightening with merchants, I have a feeling very few tx fees will actually occur (I also plan on having miners get free transfers out). So $->ENC should cost little to nothing, and ENC->merchant should cost little to nothing.

My vision now is that only people who do nothing for the network actually pay any fees. It will be harder to account for a contracting economy, but anyone who bought high will know that the value was well above what the market is trying to achieve.


There's no reason to mint if the demand is not there. Unless you want to save the 30 or 50 cents or whatever to buy your loaf of bread. But it still cost you 50 hours of an unusable computer.


If the currency is widely adopted, the merchants don't need to exchange those ENC for dollars. And there will always be people who want ENC more than $, just as there will be people who want $ more than ENC. This happens every single day in huge quantities around the world in currency markets. People who mint coins are not going to be the only ones selling.


I don't know where you come up with these genius arbitragers, but if you leave the door open for people to make a profit on making currency, competition is going to increase and that profit will eventually go to nothing. Everybody loses as the value of ENC goes down, just like an early adopter sell-off.


Yes, $50 each profit is cheaper and more motivating, meaning more people will do it and eventually the profit will be cents again. Everybody but the "arbitrager" loses.

Really, we agree on about 90% of our principles. The 10% we disagree on is worth arguing over though.


I'm not saying I have an "attack" on your system. I'm saying that the electrically efficient hashers driving out the electrically inefficient is a natural consequence of your design. It is a natural consequence of my design too. Electrical efficiency is not something either of us can detect, so it is not something we have any power to prevent.

It is analogous to bitcoin, except there the temporally efficient (faster) hashers drove out the inefficient. There was no way to prevent that, so satoshi made it a feature.


I don't know what this means, so I don't know how to respond.


My use of ROI was probably too smug. But let me be clear this is a closed system. The number of dollars going out of the system, cannot be greater than the number of dollars going into the system. It doesn't matter what happens in between.

Let's say buyers have $10,000 to spend buying ENC.

Now lets say there are 1,000 peers who burn 200W*24hours*30days. That's 144,000 kwh or about $14,400 to the electic company. Or about $14/peer say we want to give each peer $5 on average for their trouble. 35% ROI. Now we have $19,400/month in costs to run the system. That means minting somewhere near 20,000 ENC. So the price will be $1 = 1 ENC.

So the peers take these coins to the exchange and get... $10,000. Because that is all the dollars there are.

You can say 500 peers sold 20 ENC each for cost+ROI=$19.40 (after transaction fees), and the other 500 have to wait to pay their electric bills. Or 1000 peers sold 10 ENC each for $9.70 and nobody can pay their $14.40 electric bills. That doesn't change the fact that the electric company is still going to want their money, and they can't take it in ENC.

(You have the same potential problem with gold. If I spend $1,000,000 in electricity mining gold. And buyers want to buy $500,000 worth of gold. Then the electric company is still going to be just as pissed.)

The bigger problem is, that out of $10,000 exchanged for ENC, there are zero dollars left for merchants to exchange for, once purchasers have spent their 10,000 ENC. All the liquid dollars have gone to the electric company.

----

I'm not trying to say anything really earth shaking or dramatic.

I'm just saying that 1,000 non-minting peers who burn an extra 5W*24hours*30days (running this app in the background like bittorrent while doing other things). Comes to about 36 cents each. This can go without reimbursement.

Say 10 committed competing arbitragers running 500W only when profitable, say 6hours*15days when things are stable. That is 450kwh or about $4.50 in overhead (45 cents each)

So out of $10,000 exchanged for ENC, the arbitragers take $4.50 to cover their overhead. Then they take $50 each as 10X ROI. But this still leaves $9,495.50 not permanently extracted from the system.

----

Yes I realize this example is contrived, and maybe you can poke fun at different non-sensical bits. But the main point is, every dollar that goes to minters, comes from the pocket of someone buying ENC on an exchange. Those dollars will never be available to swap on the exchange again.

I know there is a little multiway exchange diagram somewhere that shows this problem.

Alice has an Apple but wants a Banana
Bob has a Banana but wants a Caramel
Carl has a Caramel but wants a Dollar
Don has a Dollar but wants an Apple

So Don give he dollar to the electric company in exchange for an ENC.
Carl says, "Hey WTF! I needed that dollar! And eats his caramel.
Bob says, "Hey I wanted that caramel, and punches Carl.
Who slips on the loose banana and falls into Alice,
distracting her just long enough for Don to grab her Apple and run like hell!

---

So in summary

$14,400 fixed cost, bad
$364.50 fixed cost, better
$4.50 fixed out of pocket, best

$5,000 @ $5 each profit, expensive and not so motivating.
$500 @ $50 each profit, cheeper and more motivating.

---

Yes, somewhere during that post I lost my mind. I'll respond more coherently to the rest of your post tomorrow.

And Yes, I'll put my concepts up and let you poke holes in them. I'm pretty sure there are a few unexpected consequences I haven't noticed. I am a little disappointed no body else pinged me to do so from the other thread. Maybe we are alone.
 

If you have a link to where I can find coders who can code extremely secure and efficient network protocols for cheap, let me know.


It is going to be 100% GPU based to start, using the exact same algorithm as bitcoin so that it can make use of merged-mining and award both encoins and bitcoins.
At some point in the future it will break away from this. Whether it's to CPU or CPU+GPU or some ubiquitous other card or device I don't know.

This is of course assuming it goes anywhere beyond proposal stage.


The only serious argument you've brought against my idea is the increased efficiency of expensive, slow, application-specific machines potentially reaping an outsize profit. And that this will somehow exclude everyone else from being part of the game. Assuming this is the case, how is it any different from your system? Because your system relies on a timer?


Pennies that go to the electric company do not come out of anyone's pockets. Sellers, savers, etc. buy a value of electricity plus a ROI for the hours of computer work involved. Getting the cost to produce back is not a ROI--nor is the ROI overhead a burden on everyone else, the coin is the electric value+ROI. You can sell the coin for the same price you bought it for. You aren't losing money because someone made 50 cents on creating the coin. Gold you purchase doesn't lose value because of the cost to mine it, that is inherent in the price of gold. You are free to go and mine your own gold if you find the price to be too high.

You suggest everyone competes for the same batch of coins, all wasting resources and only one benefiting. Where are the savings, exactly? That an eventual technological elite monopoly will occur to force out competition? And no one will ever contest it? And somehow this is inflation-proof? Instead of money going to the electric company, money goes to the elite, but yet everyone else benefits because less electricity was wasted? What is to keep them honest about keeping the price stable instead of just going for the more immediate profit (or the longterm profit in hoarding)? Goodwill towards mankind?

How about you try to put some actual numbers and equations together so we can see how this will work out. Rather than difficulty+1 and transaction fees/2. I'm interested in the concept, and willing to steal some of it, but at this point it is too far from an actual system for me to fully comprehend the implications. I don't care about security or dependability or whatever noun you want to give the network. Just the monetary policy. You're completely willing to assume your system is bullet proof while shooting holes in mine and ignoring the costs involved, but you haven't given me anywhere near enough ammo to try yours. Put your money where your mouth is.

Agreed. That was what I proposed.

Agreed. That was why I make it clear most people wouldn't be minting or benefiting from minting. It is a pure, stable, medium of exchange.

Agreed. That's why we should involve as few people as possible in that cluster fuck. That's why I said only "Smart" gamblers will take part in arbitrage. "Dumb" gamblers are welcome to try, however their dollar losses need not be born by aunt J. Dumb gamblers should pay their own bills.

Clients don't even have to know the arbitrage process is going on. Hell it happens everyday with dollars/gold/etc and I pay zero attention to who is winning and who is losing their arbitrage positions.


Stable money is a benefit to everyone. Making the currency stable should cost everyone as little as possible. Every penny that goes to the electric company is overhead that comes out of sellers, traders, hoarders, savers, spenders, and aunt J's pockets. None of it, in your model is intended to come out of the minter's pocket. Instead, everyone else's overhead, becomes the minter's ROI.

This is true in my model as well. But my model works to minimize the number of dollars that goes to the electric company. Therefore it minimizes the overhead charged to sellers, traders, hoarders, savers, spenders, and aunt J's.

This thread is too much talk and no action.

I think you need to actually start making this a reality. Is this going to be CPU or GPU based ?

Thanks !