Topic: Beware: Freicoin users taking over for pump & dump - page 2. (Read 4566 times)

Bullshit! There are always terms and conditions behind the scenes even if they are not spelled out in a document.

You define the terms of the coin contract with the functionality you allow and mechanisms you use. You are creating terms to a contract for a commodity.

If those terms are "whatever I feel like" then they are unbelievably loose and I won't trust the currency.

Things like Inflation, deflation, tx fees, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, demurrage, mining subsidies, and block reward halving are all terms that you are offering the market for your currency.


Your first point: So what if it is not intended to store value long term? Why does a currency have to store value long term? Perhaps it can be used to exchange value without indefinite storage.
Your second point; So what? The folks behind the foundation and the currency should have no say in how it gets deployed and used? They want to start it off on the right foot and were up front about that, bitcoin spent a long time in organic growth that altcoins generally try to avoid. It also helps FRC to develop a niche where it way better complement bitcoin or others.

By your arguments the Apache Foundation and the many others like it are just as bad. Why are you expecting open source projects in this space to have different governance challenges and adopt different solutions?

No U

They can't change it without a hardfork. But that's not even the problem.
One cannot even use FRC for a store of value if one is willing to commit resources to "guard" them. The "foundation" is a superfluous concept only there to enable cronies to exert power over the community.
Such a situation within Bitcoin would result in a public uproar instantly but in the strange world of alternate cryptocurrencies it's ok as long as the participants thing there will be a bigger fool than them.

Incorrect, the Foundation is there to distribute coins, not to manage a demurrage rate.

4.89% is here to stay unless a consensus of miners (EDIT: maybe a hard fork, I'm getting conflicting answers) are willing to change the rate.

good joke, but based on BS info.

+1 the Federal Reserve knows abut "premining" it's called increasing their balance sheet or running the printing presses.

+1 LOL well said

I might actually really do a fork, but there won't be any "terms".


I already explained the mechanism of demurrage could be voted upon by the users of the currency and there will be a Nash Equilibrium from the motivation to get more income and keep the savings valueable. I wouldn't exactly call it demurrage though since the concept would involve the equivalent of guarding the currency with hashing power to protect it from the effects of demurrage.
But I wouldn't create anything if it wouldn't supply it's own version control system for the source code. I'll be completely decentralized to the point where the source-code itself is subject to democratic decisions within the block chain. And I wouldn't start it if I wouldn't be certain it will be the dominant system. Destroying FRC for the lulz might sound attractive though since they need to be tought that:
You don't simply "premine" coins.

It's the reason why the forum section is filled with FRC related sales. The creators didn't think about this? Why didn't they just open a market place to stop this nonsense spam? They know the coins expire. I think FRC is just a waste of time, and wasn't though out well. I'm sure if a little more time was put into it, it would be a better coin with some value. Right now, just no.

It is easy to argue against 0% three years from now: it is hard to imagine that the network can be secured only on voluntary tx fees then (unless it takes off 100xbitcoin...), so 0% is not realistic.

I will grant you that he interval 5-1% is a bit scary, as it is only founded in an economic theory and not anything directly related to the network. The main thing is however that any successful _increase_ of this demurrage is hard to imagine; it will even be a hard sell to take it back up to 5% after being 4% for a month.

They'll also require the authorization to use force to impose their will on the masses to make Federal Reserve Coin a success.

If the average holder would prefer 3.5% over 5% wouldn't it make sense they would prefer 0% over 3.5%?  There already is a much more widely adopted 0% coin.  Of course the very idea the foundation can choose the demurage = inflation rate is kinda scary right?

Why not just change the name of the foundation to the federal reserve, pass laws making freicoin legal tender and you have just re-invented the current broken system.

But this BDSM does secure the network in the long run, albeit excessively.

I don´t think the 5% demurrage is necessarily set for all future either. Just think uf the foundation suggested to lower it to lets say 3.5%. Which average holder of Freicoin would the protest this change? Not many...

As an investor I don't see any reason to touch a currency with high demurrage, OTOH, not everyone want to be investor and Freicoin has its reason to exist, just like BDSM is part of our culture.

Indeed, from investing point of view, they should be called monetary masochism. 
 

I´ve upped my offer of contributing to a clone as you have suggested, I´m in with 1000 FRC: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1428673

Unless we have massive inflation attack (yeah right, not with the current bunch), then we might see something interesting...

This coin does not promote savings in any form. You are better off owning Federal Reserve notes.

Simran, the concept is this: certain economic problems can be solved if you eliminate (or reduce) the "store of value" property of money. It doesn't make the money useless. Money would become strictly a medium of exchange and undesirable to hoard. Whenever you get money, you would be motivated to spend it or invest it immediately.

+1

If your coins expire, doesn't that make the coin itself useless. It's kinda cool that it expires like food at a store, but this isn't intended to be food but rather a currency. Money shouldn't expire, the products should.

You seem to keep using the word paid, as if the foundation was earning a wage. This is a donation that is built into the mining contract, and like it or hate it, I fail to see how being upfront with their plans is hipocracy. Now IF they actually distribute the funds to their buddies who put in ideas, rather than spreading the wealth around, then I will join the chorus.

Right now they are on plan, I'll keep watching.

Go ahead and fork it if you want to create a version with your own terms.

Hilarious!  

The three years are the time period where the foundation is payed an income which is equals accumulated to 80% of the currency, a little less is actually spendable since the 'income' is is subject to demurrage as well, but still that is an ridiculous amount. I haven't realized they are such hypocrites.