Topic: Cryptocurrency with the best distribution? (Read 9454 times)
Bitshares is probably the best example of the "best distribution", two guys (until proven otherwise) have this very successful masquerade of 101 delegates which nobody has ever seen or talked with in person and these delegates were acquired through websites they control.
Something like PayCoin SCAM. There was that delicious pre-ICO distribution to their "private investors" of unknown quantities to unknown parties...
Bitshares is probably the best example of the "best distribution", two guys (until proven otherwise) have this very successful masquerade of 101 delegates which nobody has ever seen or talked with in person and these delegates were acquired through websites they control.
[…]
Writcoin™, the protocol wherefor this software is a client, features Bitcoin hard-fork requests such as the exclusive use of both pay-to-script-hash within all (non-data) transaction outputs and the exclusive use of fixed-width, 64-bit unsigned integers in storing block times. Writcoin utilizes floating genesis™ blocks that correct their dates to the start of the current year and a Proof-of-Work based on transaction tree Merkle roots and short (here, ten seconds) block times called Proof-of-Wait™. Writcoin defines a coinbase transaction as being any input-less transaction, regardless of origin, and defines a blockbase™ transaction as being any coinbase transaction with only one, unspendable output. (By default, the value of the block's first transaction—a blockbase transaction—is used for a nonce.)
[…]
(Red colorization added.)Writcoin™, the protocol wherefor this software is a client, features Bitcoin hard-fork requests such as the exclusive use of both pay-to-script-hash within all (non-data) transaction outputs and the exclusive use of fixed-width, 64-bit unsigned integers in storing block times. Writcoin utilizes floating genesis™ blocks that correct their dates to the start of the current year and a Proof-of-Work based on transaction tree Merkle roots and short (here, ten seconds) block times called Proof-of-Wait™. Writcoin defines a coinbase transaction as being any input-less transaction, regardless of origin, and defines a blockbase™ transaction as being any coinbase transaction with only one, unspendable output. (By default, the value of the block's first transaction—a blockbase transaction—is used for a nonce.)
[…]
In Writcoin™, new G.E. coins enter circulation through coinbase transactions (and formally exit via “null data” transactions) like in Bitcoin. However, these coinbase transactions are permitted to originate from without a block.
I have yet to see a coin that has tried to fit the emission to the actual increase in adoption, by granting the early adopters a reduced 10-100x increase assuming maximum adoption (this would happen with exponential inflation that is tied to exponential growth.)
I have seen many coins that would give 1,000,000x or more to the early adopters if they ever became widely adopted, but have 0.000000% chance of that happening.
Have a look at CKG. It is not a coin, it is a dividend-paying resource token, but the inflation formula has been tried to make such that if adoption happens, the early adopters' gains are correlated to the SQRT(increase) and the rest of the increase in value added goes to all the players as new CKG, boosting their commitment and making wealth more evenly distributed.
I have seen many coins that would give 1,000,000x or more to the early adopters if they ever became widely adopted, but have 0.000000% chance of that happening.
Have a look at CKG. It is not a coin, it is a dividend-paying resource token, but the inflation formula has been tried to make such that if adoption happens, the early adopters' gains are correlated to the SQRT(increase) and the rest of the increase in value added goes to all the players as new CKG, boosting their commitment and making wealth more evenly distributed.
What do you think makes for a good distribution of currency? And what currencies do you think have achieved a good distribution?
I can think of two main metrics that one might measure currency distribution in: percent of total currency held by individuals, and total number of individuals who hold said currency.
Another variable is time. And the speed at which the currency is dispersed through out a population.
How important is this to you? Is it an overrated factor, or is it something people underestimate the importance of.
I can think of two main metrics that one might measure currency distribution in: percent of total currency held by individuals, and total number of individuals who hold said currency.
Another variable is time. And the speed at which the currency is dispersed through out a population.
How important is this to you? Is it an overrated factor, or is it something people underestimate the importance of.
Haven't come across one perfect example. Quark initially had tried to achieve that by adopting the cpu mine concept but unfortunately the short mining period that ends too early means the coin ended up only among handful of people. I think a coin which achieve a fair distribution will be much better off than one which does not.
What is ultimately needed is an established way for the economy majority to choose a fork. That would solve both the hard forking problem and the miner incentivization problem in one fell swoop.
My guess is that when push comes to shove the method is already in place: people sell coins in the inferior fork for coins in the superior fork. In other words the market decides. Anyone who sits out the decision process is left with their wealth unchanged. Anyone who actively tries to choose which fork is better will be rewarded or debited according to the accuracy of their judgment.
My guess is that when push comes to shove the method is already in place: people sell coins in the inferior fork for coins in the superior fork. In other words the market decides. Anyone who sits out the decision process is left with their wealth unchanged. Anyone who actively tries to choose which fork is better will be rewarded or debited according to the accuracy of their judgment.
Of course it does. If it is sent to a random address, not the poor but the ones with most addresses will win. If more is taken from the "rich", the largest addresses, not the actual rich, lose more. If it is only taken but not distributed, nothing changes. Etc.
Sure I agree about addresses being pointless. That's that's why I have always explained that the "rich lists" shown around by various scam alts are themselves scams.
But I don't really agree about the rest. Most of the world has virtually no wealth aside from human capital. If we assume that is not included then even 2.5% of other wealth given equally by everyone (to anyone or everyone without specifically targeting the richest) does increase equality.
Seems we exactly agree. The only practical difficulty is how to enforce the collection of this tax (easy with blockchain, difficult IRL) and how to distribute it equally (difficult with blockchain, easy IRL).
Distributing anything IRL is often not easy. In theory sure, but in practice there is always fraud and abuse, sometime on a national or larger scale.
Controlled inflation works reasonably well for the blockchain case. I happen not to believe you should be able to sit on an asset and be guaranteed X% of the monetary base in perpetuity. (In fact I would say this guarantees that the relevant monetary base will shrink) Others disagree on that clearly though.
I got the impression back in the days of XMR emission debate that our thinking is the same in this matter.
In the current economic conditions, I would think that a 2.5%...5% annual growth of the monetary base could be justifiable. It is just that it should depend on the activity in the economy and not be fixed. In periods of low innovation and low growth, people would abandon the inflationary coins, wrecking their value, so the emission should be close to 0% in those years. The problem becomes the same that the central bankers currently have, and it is not easy to solve. So this approach has high hopes but not many proven solutions.
I have tried to mimic these thoughts in the emission model of CKG. It actually has a superficial similarity to Quark (which I have criticized heavily, ooops
) The main and important difference, not found in almost any coin, is that CKG emission is dependent on the absolute amount of activity in its economy (proxied by total hours of play by day as Proof-of-Play) when most coins rely on a fixed emission schedule and rewards given as relative shares of the hashrate/staking.
Of course it does. If it is sent to a random address, not the poor but the ones with most addresses will win. If more is taken from the "rich", the largest addresses, not the actual rich, lose more. If it is only taken but not distributed, nothing changes. Etc.
Sure I agree about addresses being pointless. That's that's why I have always explained that the "rich lists" shown around by various scam alts are themselves scams.
But I don't really agree about the rest. Most of the world has virtually no wealth aside from human capital. If we assume that is not included then even 2.5% of other wealth given equally by everyone (to anyone or everyone without specifically targeting the richest) does increase equality.
Seems we exactly agree. The only practical difficulty is how to enforce the collection of this tax (easy with blockchain, difficult IRL) and how to distribute it equally (difficult with blockchain, easy IRL).
Distributing anything IRL is often not easy. In theory sure, but in practice there is always fraud and abuse, sometime on a national or larger scale.
Controlled inflation works reasonably well for the blockchain case. I happen not to believe you should be able to sit on an asset and be guaranteed X% of the monetary base in perpetuity. (In fact I would say this guarantees that the relevant monetary base will shrink) Others disagree on that clearly though.
Of course it does. If it is sent to a random address, not the poor but the ones with most addresses will win. If more is taken from the "rich", the largest addresses, not the actual rich, lose more. If it is only taken but not distributed, nothing changes. Etc.
Sure I agree about addresses being pointless. That's that's why I have always explained that the "rich lists" shown around by various scam alts are themselves scams.
But I don't really agree about the rest. Most of the world has virtually no wealth aside from human capital. If we assume that is not included then even 2.5% of other wealth given equally by everyone (to anyone or everyone without specifically targeting the richest) does increase equality.
Seems we exactly agree. The only practical difficulty is how to enforce the collection of this tax (easy with blockchain, difficult IRL) and how to distribute it equally (difficult with blockchain, easy IRL).
Of course it does. If it is sent to a random address, not the poor but the ones with most addresses will win. If more is taken from the "rich", the largest addresses, not the actual rich, lose more. If it is only taken but not distributed, nothing changes. Etc.
Sure I agree about addresses being pointless. That's that's why I have always explained that the "rich lists" shown around by various scam alts are themselves scams.
But I don't really agree about the rest. Most of the world has virtually no wealth aside from human capital. If we assume that is not included then even 2.5% of other wealth given equally by everyone (to anyone or everyone without specifically targeting the richest) does increase equality.
Does it even matter where you send it (putting aside obvious abuse like the richest people trading it between each other)? As long as everyone gives away 2.5% the richest will be giving away more and concentration is reduced.
Rich people never got rich by giving their money away. That's why they are rich -- because they are stingy and thrifty and not donators. Its the genetic instinct of hoarding that has consumed their entire lives that allowed them to acquire vast fortunes that they won't be able to spend before they die. Then it gets passed on to their shitty kids.
How else do you think His Majesty got started?
Hey hey, I have given away more than a million dollars, and I have to say that it is significantly more than I have received from my loving parents!
Also it says "donator" next to my name.
And my kids are not shitty.
--------------------------------------------------
According to the definition, it must be that I am not rich. Thanks for this clarification
A good idea for a new coin (if your a communist) is automatic wealth distributions every day. Slowly the richer lose while the poor get more
A good idea is an idea that works
I think I already made mention to the Muslim law that says you should yearly give 2.5% of your wealth away. It can be enforced easiest by inflation. Another thing is whom to send this extra money? To ensure the "poor" receive it, there would need to be some ID authentication, which goes quite against the principles of these systems.
Does it even matter where you send it (putting aside obvious abuse like the richest people trading it between each other)? As long as everyone gives away 2.5% the richest will be giving away more and concentration is reduced.
Of course it does. If it is sent to a random address, not the poor but the ones with most addresses will win. If more is taken from the "rich", the largest addresses, not the actual rich, lose more. If it is only taken but not distributed, nothing changes. Etc.
I believe everyone should be able to earn as much as he can, through voluntary agreements. But also if it could be possible to have a fixed-percentage wealth tax (and not any other tax), it would help the poor yet keep the economic incentives.
The western world is trying to achieve the same with the 2.5% inflation target, but that is a farce, which only bites the middle class and gives to the rich, whereas the proper system would take from the rich, give to the poor and leave the middle class to mind their own business.
Does it even matter where you send it (putting aside obvious abuse like the richest people trading it between each other)? As long as everyone gives away 2.5% the richest will be giving away more and concentration is reduced.
Rich people never got rich by giving their money away. That's why they are rich -- because they are stingy and thrifty and not donators. Its the genetic instinct of hoarding that has consumed their entire lives that allowed them to acquire vast fortunes that they won't be able to spend before they die. Then it gets passed on to their shitty kids.
How else do you think His Majesty got started?
I think NEM has by far done the best with distribution.
Too bad NEM doesn't actually exist.
Finally read the whole thread ... I joined late 
If I could learn anything from this it is that it looks like there is no equitable distribution.
I think the hardest part is to establish equal value.
Certain things have different values for different people, countries, nations ...
Some appreciate the value of time, because they do not have enough. While others have time to spare. Some people value gold and to other it doesn't mean anything. Some need water, some are starving ...
For a fair distribution the first thing would be to define something that is of equal value to everyone and it is also equally available at the same time.
Just my two (philosophical) cents
If I could learn anything from this it is that it looks like there is no equitable distribution.
I think the hardest part is to establish equal value.
Certain things have different values for different people, countries, nations ...
Some appreciate the value of time, because they do not have enough. While others have time to spare. Some people value gold and to other it doesn't mean anything. Some need water, some are starving ...
For a fair distribution the first thing would be to define something that is of equal value to everyone and it is also equally available at the same time.
Just my two (philosophical) cents
A good idea for a new coin (if your a communist) is automatic wealth distributions every day. Slowly the richer lose while the poor get more
A good idea is an idea that works
I think I already made mention to the Muslim law that says you should yearly give 2.5% of your wealth away. It can be enforced easiest by inflation. Another thing is whom to send this extra money? To ensure the "poor" receive it, there would need to be some ID authentication, which goes quite against the principles of these systems.
Does it even matter where you send it (putting aside obvious abuse like the richest people trading it between each other)? As long as everyone gives away 2.5% the richest will be giving away more and concentration is reduced.
A good idea for a new coin (if your a communist) is automatic wealth distributions every day. Slowly the richer lose while the poor get more
A good idea is an idea that works
I think I already made mention to the Muslim law that says you should yearly give 2.5% of your wealth away. It can be enforced easiest by inflation. Another thing is whom to send this extra money? To ensure the "poor" receive it, there would need to be some ID authentication, which goes quite against the principles of these systems.
A good idea for a new coin (if your a communist) is automatic wealth distributions every day. Slowly the richer lose while the poor get more
A good idea is an idea that works
A good idea for a new coin (if your a communist) is automatic wealth distributions every day. Slowly the richer lose while the poor get more
A good idea is an idea that works
Jump to: