The natural way to do P2P currency expansion is to award new coins proportionately to those who hold existing coins. Duh.
I advocate demurrage to discourage hoarding. How a positive interest in accounts can discourage hoarding?
Topic: Limited coins and hoarding (Read 8882 times)
I advocate demurrage to discourage hoarding. How a positive interest in accounts can discourage hoarding?
I wish this would work but you just cannot control the market like you want to. Take a look at RS and his bait and switch methods for 32->5 SC reward drop. Price is 0.009 now but still hashrate is declined and less profitable than before etc.
Well, the last time you responded to anything about it was on revision 2 before I had really laid down the foundation.
"I won't fault you for trying, but I can't agree that artificial attempts to suppress the cost/value of coin creation are worthwhile."
That was what you responded with in a PM, I don't remember what I said originally or how I responded, but it is a statement borne on the back of bitcoin's monetary policy without understanding mine. Status quo bias, et al. I believe you are the one that politely refused to consider. Even calling it artificial, as if bitcoin's monetary policy is anything but.
"I won't fault you for trying, but I can't agree that artificial attempts to suppress the cost/value of coin creation are worthwhile."
That was what you responded with in a PM, I don't remember what I said originally or how I responded, but it is a statement borne on the back of bitcoin's monetary policy without understanding mine. Status quo bias, et al. I believe you are the one that politely refused to consider. Even calling it artificial, as if bitcoin's monetary policy is anything but.
I have personally offered advice in the past, including but not limited to the "that won't work" type. A polite refusal to consider is still a rejection of opinion, so my point stands.
Except that your pursuit of monetary policy opinions tend to filter out those whom you disagree with. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with this, as it has to be done in some fashion; but the end result is the same as Satoshi's.
The only one who has actually put any input on monetary policy has been Red, and he has done oodles and I have incorporated a lot of his ideas. Most everyone else just argues it won't work for one misguided reason or another, and I spend my time explaining how it could. Bitcoin has turned a lot of people into monday morning quarterback economists, often ignoring the fact that a lot of the good part of bitcoin's economy is lack of government intervention, not fixed supply. I go one step further and say hey, instead of having an arbitrary amount of money in the supply, how about we let people decide how much money is in the supply.
It's not as if there is no school of thought behind this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
Quote
This theory draws its roots from two almost diametrically opposed ideas: the hard money policies that dominated monetary thinking in the late 19th century, and the monetary theories of John Maynard Keynes, who, working in the inter-war period during the failure of the restored gold standard, proposed a demand-driven model for money which was the foundation of macroeconomics. While Keynes had focused on the value stability of currency, with the resulting panics based on an insufficient money supply leading to alternate currency and collapse, then Friedman focused on price stability, which is the equilibrium between supply and demand for money.
...
Friedman originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman's k-percent rule, where the money supply would be calculated by known macroeconomic and financial factors, targeting a specific level or range of inflation. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the central reserve bank as money supply increases could be determined "by a computer", and business could anticipate all monetary policy decisions.
...
Instead, monetarist thinking centers on the contraction of the M1 during the 1931-1933 period, and argues from there that the Federal Reserve could have avoided the Great Depression by moves to provide sufficient liquidity. In essence, they argue that there was an insufficient supply of money.
From their conclusion that incorrect central bank policy is at the root of large swings in inflation and price instability, monetarists argued that the primary motivation for excessive easing of central bank policy is to finance fiscal deficits by the central government. Hence, restraint of government spending is the most important single target to restrain excessive monetary growth.
...
Monetarists of the Milton Friedman school of thought believed in the 1970s and 1980s that the growth of the money supply should be based on certain formulations related to economic growth. As such, they can be regarded as advocates of a monetary policy based on a "quantity of money" target. This can be contrasted with the monetary policy advocated by supply side economics and the Austrian School which are based on a "value of money" target (albeit from different ends of the formula). Austrian economists criticise monetarism for not recognizing the citizens' subjective value of money and trying to create an objective value through supply and demand.
...
While most monetarists believe that government action is at the root of inflation, very few advocate a return to the gold standard. Friedman, for example, viewed a pure gold standard as highly impractical.[15] For example, whereas one of the benefits of the gold standard is that the intrinsic limitations to the growth of the money supply by the use of gold or silver would prevent inflation, if the growth of population or increase in trade outpaces the money supply, there would be no way to counteract deflation and reduced liquidity (and any attendant recession) except for the mining of more gold or silver under a gold or silver standard.
...
Friedman originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman's k-percent rule, where the money supply would be calculated by known macroeconomic and financial factors, targeting a specific level or range of inflation. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the central reserve bank as money supply increases could be determined "by a computer", and business could anticipate all monetary policy decisions.
...
Instead, monetarist thinking centers on the contraction of the M1 during the 1931-1933 period, and argues from there that the Federal Reserve could have avoided the Great Depression by moves to provide sufficient liquidity. In essence, they argue that there was an insufficient supply of money.
From their conclusion that incorrect central bank policy is at the root of large swings in inflation and price instability, monetarists argued that the primary motivation for excessive easing of central bank policy is to finance fiscal deficits by the central government. Hence, restraint of government spending is the most important single target to restrain excessive monetary growth.
...
Monetarists of the Milton Friedman school of thought believed in the 1970s and 1980s that the growth of the money supply should be based on certain formulations related to economic growth. As such, they can be regarded as advocates of a monetary policy based on a "quantity of money" target. This can be contrasted with the monetary policy advocated by supply side economics and the Austrian School which are based on a "value of money" target (albeit from different ends of the formula). Austrian economists criticise monetarism for not recognizing the citizens' subjective value of money and trying to create an objective value through supply and demand.
...
While most monetarists believe that government action is at the root of inflation, very few advocate a return to the gold standard. Friedman, for example, viewed a pure gold standard as highly impractical.[15] For example, whereas one of the benefits of the gold standard is that the intrinsic limitations to the growth of the money supply by the use of gold or silver would prevent inflation, if the growth of population or increase in trade outpaces the money supply, there would be no way to counteract deflation and reduced liquidity (and any attendant recession) except for the mining of more gold or silver under a gold or silver standard.
Note how austrian economists criticize a property that would not exist in encoin; citizens create the money based on whether or not it is profitable. Far different from the government deciding on when the money is too valuable and more must be created. No goverment spending, no liquidity traps, currency may be created more easily based on economic growth factors (this is in my most recent post in the thread), etc. It fixes a hell of a lot of the problems with a government-backed currency without having to fall back to the problems of a fixed supply.
Unlike Satoshi, I am actually trying to put thought into and get input on monetary policy.
Except that your pursuit of monetary policy opinions tend to filter out those whom you disagree with. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with this, as it has to be done in some fashion; but the end result is the same as Satoshi's.
Unlike Satoshi, I am actually trying to put thought into and get input on monetary policy.
Miners aren't people? LOL
Whatever. Obviously your intent it just to troll, misrepresent and obfuscate.
Welcome to ignore, an accomplishment as you are the first.
You are quite right there mate. All talk no walk. We want to see EnCoin actually launched. Too much talking no doing around these parts.
Take a hint from Satoshi : "I'm better with code than with words though."
Miners aren't people? LOL
Whatever. Obviously your intent it just to troll, misrepresent and obfuscate.
Welcome to ignore, an accomplishment as you are the first.
Miners aren't people? LOL
So in what way is that different from my system? Anyone can join the tradenet. Anyone will eventually get a transaction block.
Because it involves people. People who can be bribed, coerced, tricked. There is a well know vulnerability to Bitcoin "the 51% attack" but it is well known. There is no need to trust miners just numbers. If attacker has 51% of hashing power they can attack the network.
The more complicated the system and the more it involves fallible human the more likely there are yet to be known vulnerabilities. How many unknown vulnerabilities exist in enCoin well given it's insanely high complexity in every aspect I would imagine a lot.
So in what way is that different from my system? Anyone can join the tradenet. Anyone will eventually get a transaction block.
No you didn't. By definition anyone other than the sender or receiver is a third party. Your system requires trusting in third parties. Bitcoin doesn't.
So you don't have to trust a miner to put his transaction in his transaction block? It's amazing how much credit you are willing to give bitcoin that isn't there.
No. I can put my own transaction in a block if you are willing to wait long enough.
No you didn't. By definition anyone other than the sender or receiver is a third party. Your system requires trusting in third parties. Bitcoin doesn't.
So you don't have to trust a miner to put his transaction in his transaction block? It's amazing how much credit you are willing to give bitcoin that isn't there.
At this rate, we're never going to hit the cap anyhow.
And I came up with a solution to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust, only the combined trust of the network. It is a similar manner as 51% in hashing, except that no electricity or hashing power is needed (except for transaction verification anyway). You sure you read my proposal?
No you didn't. By definition anyone other than the sender or receiver is a third party. Your system requires trusting in third parties. Bitcoin doesn't.
That is a misnomer. It isn't wasting anything.
The money and electricity spent is what protects the network. It isn't like network security is magic and then miners waste electricity looking for coins. There is no other mechanism to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust.
The money and electricity spent is what protects the network. It isn't like network security is magic and then miners waste electricity looking for coins. There is no other mechanism to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust.
That is not the definition of misnomer.
And I came up with a solution to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust, only the combined trust of the network. It is a similar manner as 51% in hashing, except that no electricity or hashing power is needed (except for transaction verification anyway). You sure you read my proposal?Ironically bittorrent is a worse system than lets say gnutella or edonkey or ever heard of directconnect?
I've heard of and used them all, and I still think bittorrent is light-years better.
They fit different forms of sharing, but bittorrent is by far the easiest and most efficient. 
I predict that 5 years from now bitcoins will be worth pennies again. *shrug*
They may be but at least they existed and people learned from it, and at pennies would still have some value.
Napster is gone but it lead to decentralized file sharing and then eventually bittorrent.
Learning doesn't always mean that the best solution is chosen, what matters most is what kind of people are attracted to it.
I've never knocked on bitcoin as a proof of concept; I think it is amazing that it has proven something like this is possible. I think relying on hashing power to secure the network will end up being a very large flaw though, either in wasting computing resources and electricity for as long as bitcoin exists or by the possibility of someone subverting it during a period of low faith or by finding an improvement in the hashing of SHA2 and using it against bitcoin. It is highly inefficient and inelegant. But I don't knock satoshi for that, it was the first try after all.
That is a misnomer. It isn't wasting anything.
The money and electricity spent is what protects the network. It isn't like network security is magic and then miners waste electricity looking for coins. There is no other mechanism to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust.
I've never knocked on bitcoin as a proof of concept; I think it is amazing that it has proven something like this is possible. I think relying on hashing power to secure the network will end up being a very large flaw though, either in wasting computing resources and electricity for as long as bitcoin exists or by the possibility of someone subverting it during a period of low faith or by finding an improvement in the hashing of SHA2 and using it against bitcoin. It is highly inefficient and inelegant. But I don't knock satoshi for that, it was the first try after all.
Jump to: