Topic: eCurrency with a Basic Income? (Read 1645 times)

Good point. Maybe I can refute it if I modify my statement so it says care less about privacy than security?  


I'm sorry I don't understand how a cryptocurrency would effect buying a more expensive car in a socialist state. Unless you mean the anonymity would have toppled the government?


It really depends on the economic landscape and political attitudes. If unemployment rises above 50%, or if you could convince 60% of the population that their jobs are fundamentally worthless, then hopefully this type of system would be attractive to the majority.


You're right this idea was stupid. It's why I started thinking about WiFi, but as I mentioned I wasn't happy with the forced menial labour. My question now is whether the network could monitor a combination of a user's physical movements and general online interactions. Would this be enough to prevent fake humans using the network?

My concerns are more pragmatic than free market enthusiasm. If it's opt-in, why would someone choose this currency over other cryptocurrencies? Keep in mind that individuals don't choose options that are best for everyone involved, but focus on short-term selfish benefit. So even if GMI is desirable, the system still might not work as intended.

If you're doing face-to-face distribution, who collects and distributes the cash? You?

I would have to disagree with number two. First example that comes to mind would be drugs. Not even illegal drugs. Viagra, or anything that could be embarrassing (heroin addiction is, in my opinion, embarrassing). What about locally illegal products? If I lived in Cuban (before 2011!) I would love to have driven a car made in 2000. The 90's. Hell, the 80's would have been an upgrade. Get my point? There are MANY places when anonymity is required and a third party simply isn't enough.

Forget the profile. Income could be determined by how much human work is performed via the node. The work would have to be non-competitive yet still useful to the network.

It looks tempting to say why not let employers offer work for a minimum wage but this wouldn't work because an employer with a good reputation could exploit new workers. I know ripple-pay avoids this but it isn't anonymous.

As for preventing a single human earning more than one GMI:

- The location (position, velocity, acceleration) of the node is determined by peers via WiFi radar.
- A specific node's radius couldn't be used by a trespassing node at least for earning income.
- The work would have to be completed in continuous chunks which would add up to a maximum of 12.01 hours per 24 hour period.

Not too happy with the last requirement but I see GMI as a way of undermining existing currencies. Guaranteed work could still have this effect.

I'm not sure how this profile thing can work.

Suppose I introduce a friend to Bitcoin today, and he uses it regularly from now on, he would earn a profile under your system in X number of years.

Now suppose I get a new IP, fresh install a new bitcoin client, and uses this puppet account regularly from now on. How would you prevent this puppet account from earning a profile in X number of years?

Well by the time I finished the post I realised software probably isn't the answer. An offline method like face to face distribution by humans is the only thing I can think of. Modern day robin hoods.


I expected free market enthusiasts to bash the idea, but I think a GMI is a capitalist ideal. It increases market fluidity both directly and by preventing money hoarding. We're already at the stage where governments are trying in vain to establish the information economy. It's time to let go of outdated work ethics.


I suspect bloodshed happens when money is issued to corps and governments. Inflation from a GMI would be a mundane fact of life.

Government can print money, but it can't print the things that you buy with money.  This is called inflation, and it usually ends with massive bloodshed.

I don't think most people would prefer government currencies because governments provide GMI. Using an inflationary currency is more harmful to the user, and inflation taxes hurt poor people more. No one will "take one for the team".

Of course, anyone can print some sort of money.

meh, anonymity is not the primary attribute of bitcoin. I don't care much about it.


Bitcoin addresses can be registered for easy tax assessment and issuance of GMI.


I'm not sure how this reward in income is any better than the distribution of bitcoin blocks and transaction fees. If your talking about a welfare system based on bitcoins, just think about all the money that won't be going to banksters sitting by the pool collecting dividend checks and having lunch with lobbyists. It's the people that actually do the work that get paid.



I wasted all this time responding to an obvious troll. Kudos!

Bitcoin is not a valid answer to governments stealing via taxes. Here's why:

1. Government money can be printed and issued as a guaranteed minimum income (GMI).
2. The only advantage Bitcoin offers to general users is anonymity, which most people don't care about.
3. Since governments already provide a limited GMI, obviously most people would still rather support government currencies than use Bitcoin.

The way forward is to invent a currency that provides a GMI to every user. The main problem to be solved is how to avoid individuals claiming more than once while preserving anonymity.

My attempt:

A network like antsp2p could store a profile of each user. The profile would be a log of behaviour which benefits the system, like time spent running the network software. A chain of encrypted ip addresses would preserve identity across physical interfaces.

The user could start with a paltry guaranteed income and be awarded more as their profile logs activities which are beneficial to the system such as mining and using bitcoins and running the software. But to prevent duplicates the profile would need to take a long time to develop, a period of years. It would also make losing the profile password or identity theft a total disaster.

Alternatively, could we give the income to machines instead of humans? Running the software for 13 hours a day would prove a single nic does not have more than one profile. Problem is that an individual can have more than one ip or always share their ip. The cost of ip addresses would increase as individuals start buying them up. Not really what we want.

Any ideas? The anonymity is important because it let's users avoid tax.