Topic: Stabilized Bitcoin using eMunie economics - page 3. (Read 4317 times)

No it wasn't, I spent time setting up the test to behave like Bitcoin, time I could of used on other things as I thought it would be interesting for all to see how Bitcoin would behave with this applied.

Heh ok I'm not playing this game.

I'll come back with a professor.

easier to report this topic to be moved to the altcoin category, as its not bitcoin. and all fake bitcoin tests yielding fake results, purely done to try getting to talk about their altcoin on the main bitcoin category by subtly talking about bitcoin.

but i do hope they do have some utility in teir own economy. but definetly doesnt belong in the bitcoin category

Do you endorse @CfB's "trinary logic"?

(simple question - which others are awaiting your reply on)

So you endorse censorship?

Well - if your project's topic starts to look much like @CfB's project in terms of the way that posts are being handled then I think you should seriously question whether you are doing the right thing.

This forum is relevant to crypto (which is the field I work in) and Bitcoin (which is the subject of the test), why would it not be relevant? 

Why would I ask them to do that, they are free to post on whatever they like, as it happens they are avid eMunie supporters and are attempting to assist in explaining and answering the questions raised.

I'm certainly not going to start ordering people what they can and can't post, just in case others look upon me in a bad light for it when the topic of conversation is a legitimate one.

If you were just answering questions (that I'd actually asked you) then that would be totally okay - but I actually haven't even asked you a single question (I was asking the guy in charge).

So answering questions is now considered bad form?  What a concept. 

Okay - but I would not have thought that this forum would be the appropriate place to present your idea (as I doubt hardly any such people would be looking at this forum).

Also - it is starting to look like you have a bunch of shills here.

If you want to be taken seriously I think you should perhaps ask them to tone it down.

Well, Friedman died 10 years ago, but that's irrelevant to the facts of his published theory.  I'm guessing since Einstein is dead light can now easily go faster than 'c.'

I don't think that the Chinese economy can be compared to eMunie at all. The Chinese economy is an extremely manipulated house of cards build from an insane amount of (often hidden) credit.

Surely to get backing I need to present my idea first...which is what Im doing here and seemingly getting scolded for it.

Actually the start cost of $0.1 was based on the first every trade of BTC at that price, from Mt.Gox.

The sentiment doesn't change!

That trade even though it is now only at $1 is processed as if it was at $1000.

Yes, the baseline (start) cost was set to $0.10.  The btc prices were then normalized to this value since that is the expected start value for eMunie (tentatively).

I am just wondering why there don't seem to be any economists (Hungarian or otherwise) backing your model.

(if your idea is backed by the so-called Hungarian's then why are they not being supportive of it?)

Almost but from the wrong angle

The price of EMU has no bearing on how much you hold, if you hold 10EMU and the price drops from $1 to $0.50 you still have 10EMU.

The demand of EMU does have effect though, so if the price of EMU is going up due to demand, and there is not enough supply, new supply is created and distributed in a number of ways.

One of those ways is "dividend on balance" (or stake), so if there was 10% new supply created, you would receive a 10% dividend on your balance.  Now you have 11 EMU, not 10.

Its preferable when attempting to maintain a stable price, that absorbing new incoming value is done by an increase in quantity, and not the price of each unit.


Yes if the buffer has an excess, then it will not be allocated a portion of more supply, only users will (getting a bit out of the realms of the discussion here, but it was a good question!)


The buffer can always remove EMU from supply (fill sell trades) as it is able to do the conversion of EMU to another token at will and "in place"

Example, you are selling 1 EMU for 1 USD.  The buffer has no EMU and no USD tokens, it can take your 1 EMU, convert it to 1 USD token, and send it back to you.

You can then exchange that 1 USD token for a real USD dollar via the TRAID network (again a bit out of realm for this topic, but I want to be through)

Later the person that exchanged you 1 real USD for your USD token wants to by an EMU, he posts a trade and the process repeats, converting that USD token to EMU if possible, or your trade of that USD token sits on the exchange until someone other than the buffer comes and fills it (at this point, the buffer is not able to intervene so the prices run unhindered until it can).

So isn't taking the next logical step in rationally implementing the Quantity Theory of Money (first proposed in the 80s when technology would have been limited for a useful implementation) considered relatively the same thing as having it supported by a sizable population of academia?

seems like over 5 years of your model it never reached $1000

anyway.. goodluck with your emu coin.. it wont work on the freemarket, but may be a good demonstration for the fiat centralised and controlled economy