Topic: Do you know of any economic incentives encouraging equality? (Read 355 times)

This goes against the concept of the immutability of the blockchain and it goes against ownership rights what gives someone the right to revert a transaction? Why that transaction in particular and not others? The model developed by satoshi is simple and not open to interpretations, you either have coins or not, if you have them cool and if you don't then bad luck, what you are saying amounts to nothing more than forced redistribution and look how well that worked in Venezuela.

I think some blog posters are assuming I mean that we keep a limitation to the amount of coins each person can have. That approach is absolutely purist view and is borderline communism. I believe something like "wage benefits" and "progressive taxation". These are fundamental in any economy existing today.

On your quote about selling 10000 bitcoin for a cent. I would anticipate that there will be some app coin or technology which enables us to revert a transaction. Especially with things like micropayments being a big thing now in bitcoin and every cryptocurrency.

The drive of capitalism is to ensure the efficiency of the network. At least that is how I see it. Blocks get rewarded to those who have strong hashing power. Stake rewards goes to those with largest stake. Perhaps, charitability can ensure efficiency too. For example, maybe theyd have some group of people like equality-miners, who mine for coins much more easier only that the portion has to be given and signed in a transaction to those who are looking for faucet coins, but a smart contract only enables provability that the faucet participant has less than a certain number of coins. Again, gaming issues are a problem, but still. Radical idea that might make ecosystem better

I do not know if such a coin exists but if it does it is going to fail, you need to understand that bitcoin and any other coin like it are based on capitalism and capitalism is based on your performance, no one cares if at some point you had 10000 bitcoin and you sold them each one for a cent that was your mistake besides the model you are proposing will need a limitation to the amount of coins each person can have and bitcoin is based on the principle that no one, not even satoshi himself, can take your coins away from you.

Very interesting account of evolution and it all makes a lot of sense. I especially appreciate the sentence "focusing primarily upon the tail end of a reactionary state, rather than a preventionary one". Focusing on "wage benefits" are the acknowledgement of the failure to govern your system properly in the first place. It depends on the goal of the system as to what the tolerances limits are.

Somehow the pitch of "Let capitalistic ventures arise naturally with little regulation. Take some money from the excessive rich and give em to the excessive poor" has a very welcoming ring to it.

Proposed implementations of equality carry a malus of focusing primarily upon the tail end of a reactionary state, rather than a preventionary one. If people are to have equal standards, they must have narrower tolerances of intelligence, bravery, critical thinking ability and knowledge et al. Darwins paradigm of natural variation is opposed to this. Nature itself is said to abhor a vacuum which naturally incentivizes differences across our species, towards different end points. This geometric variance is partly responsible for the wide discrepancy between early adopters and late adopters.

Imagine a race where the winners are handicapped such that everyone finishes the race at the same time. Nature and our DNA abhor this result. In terms of social darwinism and survival of the fittest, both speculate upon our survival relying upon there being winners and losers on society. And so while marx's ideal may represent a utopia to some, there are other factors which may always be naturally opposed to that view.

Anyways, I think a decent response might resemble something like this. But to be honest, its not something I think about much.

I choose to be optimistic. Game theoretic wise: There is a field called Evolutionary game theory. The field professes that in a time-evolving game, occasionally, it may be benefitial for actors in the game to act charitably to other actors to obtain benefits in the future. I cant tell you in extreme detail but I believe that consensus protocols can be manufactured such that donation to poorer peers are rewarded by miners and therefore incentivized(excluding all the possible outcomes of gaming). I do agree that the question, "Who is poor?" and "How do we know how much peers have relative to the system" are difficult questions to answer without any central entity like the government to monitor through some sort of taxation or regulation(ie your point about having access to information at the same time). Agreed, your point on early adopters has parallel to the poverty trap in economics. I have had a very difficult time thinking about centralisation. Centralisation is somewhat NATURAL. I still am pulling my hair thinking about this.

Equality has always been the vocal point of Karl Marx's theory. Trying to propose an economic situation where everyone would have equal access to amenities and things to will ensure good living.

This same equality having been raised by OP, we could observe that the society and situations of live has never provided equality even as we are witnessing in present situation with access to bitcoin. For instance, different jurisdiction especially the third world countries, don't have equal access to good technology and  better internet connection and speed. This affects them in so many ways, like not being able to buy ico coins that needs very strong IP address and internet connection, sometimes; witnessing of network issues with transfers and receiving of coins etc.

Equality has been strived for but yet to be attained.

I have not seen anyone though and its because its practically impossible for everyone to have access to information at the same time no matter the amount of publicity to ensure that happens there will always be early adopters and late adopters. Also, a lot of people would hear about it with the opportunity to be part of the early adopters but still does not act on it thereby making them by default the late ones. That still does not remove the issue of centralization.

I agree. Anonymity and regulation(equality) are opposing concepts. You can't have one without sacrificing the other. But just to mention, a lot of token sales now are being faced with regulation such as the KYC process. This is because authorities refuse to back purchases of tokens from North Korean people as it opposes their stance on "whatever they call freedom". I think at the fundraising stage, this may be viable because many tokens are now no longer anonymous. That and the rise of a lot of other technology such as Chainalysis and many more. The blockchain is getting more and more identifiable especially through transaction history.

Thank you for your reply davis196.

There is a reason why in this current day and age we live in a mixed economy. I am not proposing a purely equal system and limiting caps of everyone participating is just silly. Why? Well, the tokens which may have a use case may be needed in different amounts. Person A might need more tokens than person B -- that is just an obvious concept. Nevertheless, I agree that people can create multiple identities. Spamming and creation of fake accounts, however, is not a new concept. Search engines face the same thing with these link bombs and link farms. Domain registration ,for example, makes it expensive to create fake websites. A parallel can be drawn for acquiring tokens that is close to the paradigm of staking coins. I am not saying that it will be an easy task.

Yeah... Everyone will create fake identities, which will cause chaos. What you just thought of encourages cheating!
Cryptocurrencies are meant to be anonymous, so we either take away the anonymity of the cryptocurrency to be able to punish the cheaters, or we reward the cheaters for cheating, as they can obtain a lot more coins than legitimate users.

-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=-==-===-==-=


I'm not sure what would work in this case... I mean... Cryptocurrencies and equality going together? Not sure how. Anonymity was one of the major features of cryptocurrencies and we would have to take that away to be able to enforce equality... It would probably be way easier to do that without the current form of cryptocurrencies, which are almost all giving rich investors more than poor investors. (Think about ICOs which give large investments more bonuses than small investments)

And it's the rich people ruling the world. I mean... We got Mr. Donald controlling one of the most powerful countries in the world... A billionaire... Would he allow equality, if that'd mean he'd lose a lot of money? Probably not.

I feel like we're heading towards a war. Might be like the cold war, no real fighting. It'll probably consist out of ton of negotiations, splitting some countries, etc.. Then we might have a bit more equality temporarily, after which we'll head downwards once again, slowly losing all of the equality in the world. It's a cycle and no one knows how much longer it is until the bubble's gonna burst.

If you want equality,then you should limit the amounts of coins/tokens that every user should have.
If all the investors in some ICO have 100 tokens each and this is the maximum they could buy,i think that is the closest thing to equality.The problem is that many people could create fake accounts/identities in order to buy more tokens/coins,so they will avoid this rule.Meritocracy is actually something good.If you want more equality,this will hurt the consept of meritocracy.

This has been something I thought for quite some time. Many consensus protocols seem to have no notion of governing equality, instead, they heavily focus on equitability or meritocracy, which preferential system always penalize the late adopters. To an extent, the lack of focus in this area compels networks to naturally become centralised. Are there any examples of blockchain type coins which develop their consensus model on this?