It's sooo boring ... to swim in the dead waters !
Hint: fiat must disappear.
Topic: StableCoin (Read 8998 times)
again, do it !
i am not kidding or trolling you !
ask TS where this project is now, send PM to him.
i am not kidding or trolling you !
ask TS where this project is now, send PM to him.
X8currency is an upcoming token that will raise the bar in stability and safety.
https://x8currency.com/
X8 slack: https://x8currency.herokuapp.com/
https://x8currency.com/
X8 slack: https://x8currency.herokuapp.com/
Adjust coin release according to xrate not fed print policy . Fed printing policy isnt what determines the value of USD alone, its a key an element in the equation.
In this thread I did not intend to discuss a crypto-currency to be tied to any fiat.
I wanted to discuss the possibility that a crypto-currency can decide by internal metrics alone how many new coins to put into circulation with each block.
Maybe by heuristics gained from transaction number and volume. Maybe with the help of additional classification metadata that dedicated users can optionally specify with each transaction, which could help initiate and maintain a self-learning process in the system.
I wanted to discuss the possibility that a crypto-currency can decide by internal metrics alone how many new coins to put into circulation with each block.
Maybe by heuristics gained from transaction number and volume. Maybe with the help of additional classification metadata that dedicated users can optionally specify with each transaction, which could help initiate and maintain a self-learning process in the system.
Tie it to fiat? Then you're giving the fed free reign to print your currency.
Tie it to current fiat price, and adjust it every time fed prints new money.
Good luck with that
Tie it to fiat? Then you're giving the fed free reign to print your currency.
Tie it to current fiat price, and adjust it every time fed prints new money.
Reserved...
the thread has a little life in it, most exchanges are reliable enough and you dont need to reference an exchange initially anyway for coin creation policy
the exchange isnt the source of the supply its the source of the exchange rate. It has to be a reliable exchange or maybe a few exchanges can be used to source an exchange rate. Can a system be arrranged where the miner input the exchange rate or something?
A crypto exchange being the source of the supply is essentially a central bank, it is not decentralized. Decrits has the closest thing yet that I've seen to achieving a goal of a decentralized stable price. Of course I am biased.
It doesnt target an exchange rate as I understand it. Am I wrong?
There's already a coin named Stablecoin 
im asking if it can be done
I said if the coin supply could be adjusted in a decentralised manner, not centralised. All you need is a crypto exchange to source an exchange rate, it doesnt matter if mt gox is not allowing USD withdrawals or whatever.
Could the coin supply be adjusted in a decentralised manner according to an exchange rate sourced from an exchange like mt gox? Of course the exchange itself would be a point of centralisation but the average of a few exchanges could be used to source an exchange rate.
For those watching this thread, the latest Decrits proposal is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decrits-the-99-attack-proof-coin-189239
The idea is not to make P totally stable. The idea is to make MV move along a certain growth path, and keep P stable within a certain range. This will be the expectations anchor in the proposed currency, like the certainty of the money supply is with bitcoin
But you can't determine P without knowing Q, and Q can't be determined by transaction activity. Or any ungameable measure (same as P). Therefore whatever formula you come up with for adjusting MV in response to PQ will not suit the circumstances at least some of the time, probably most. It will probably be more stable than bitcoin, but bitcoin made every effort not to be stable, so it's not a fair comparison.
Quote
Quote
Then what do you think will happen when people are cut off from trying to spend their money?
If the specs are published and discussed, then anyone joining in a new currency will be aware. It is just like those who buy freicoin even after they are aware of the demurrage.
It isn't awareness that is the question I'm asking though, it is what you believe will be the economic results. How would an exchange even handle this? It will not be very user-friendly or intuitive, and I think from what I have seen you write (note: I wholly understand you are thought processing the idea) that this will cause bouts of unnecessary deflation.
Quote
No, my comparison was not with Decrits. It was with a coin that printed more as transaction fees increased.
Well it's hard not to assume you are referring to Decrits after asking about it. As I mentioned, it is easy to make the case of how your idea Y is better than weak idea X. If I may be so bold, it is not so easy to make a case of how your idea Y is better than the Decrits idea X.
Quote
The term I was looking for and used in the last para - expectations anchor. Every currency will need one.
But does it achieve stability? Stability that is better than bitcoin is not good enough, imo. I made a bold claim, probably in this thread, that I think Decrits could be more stable than the commodities it is being measured against. The only way this would be possible is if the standard deviation of a decrit is less than that of a basket of CPI items. The network would have to be quite large and ubiquitous before that could be the case though, but still in the mean time I think it can remain excellently stable barring irrational attacks. And there are potential defenses (even automated) against irrational attacks.
Quote
Nothing can be done about off-chain transactions, those are not visible to the chain. We have to design around them.
Right, which, IMO, means using transaction activity/tx fees as any kind of indicator of P or Q is a minefield.
Quote
No, the hyperinflation point was directed towards a theoritical currency that had a feedback loop that encouraged more coinage as more transactions happened.
I think by now you know my opinion on making this type of argument.
Quote
My initial idea, as quoted was to have a pure mordor coin during an early phase of bootstrapping and transaction fees level targetting after that, minimising the need for energy after that. A steady growth in transaction fees has a good chance of encouraging some miners to stay with the coin.
You are going from point A to point C here. By what mechanic is the need for energy minimized? You haven't explained this. You'll also have to tread very carefully if you intend for mining to be the security of the network, because mordorcoin will have a way of rearing its ugly head if that is the case.
Quote
I appreciate the patience that you have shown with my ideas. Almost nothing I entered here is a criticism of decrits. Those are, my half baked ideas for a stable coin. I truly hoped that others would respond as well, to get more views. If the price of admission to a stablecoin thread is full understanding of decrits, then i can say that is a high price to pay.
Half-baked is nice n all, but Decrits is ready to serve. So it's frustrating from my point of view that people are willing to spend a lot of time and effort in coming up with some ideas that will be nicer than bitcoin without even making the attempt at understanding Decrits.
Continuing my conversation with Etlase over here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1948749
The idea is not to make P totally stable. The idea is to make MV move along a certain growth path, and keep P stable within a certain range. This will be the expectations anchor in the proposed currency, like the certainty of the money supply is with bitcoin
If the specs are published and discussed, then anyone joining in a new currency will be aware. It is just like those who buy freicoin even after they are aware of the demurrage.
No, my comparison was not with Decrits. It was with a coin that printed more as transaction fees increased.
For bitcoin, it is the monetary base itself.
Case-in-point.
Quote
I'm discussing the possibility of using the nominal transaction fees as an indicator.
The term I was looking for and used in the last para - expectations anchor. Every currency will need one.
Nothing can be done about off-chain transactions, those are not visible to the chain. We have to design around them.
No, the hyperinflation point was directed towards a theoritical currency that had a feedback loop that encouraged more coinage as more transactions happened. I don't remember enough offhand about decrits to make such a comment about it.
The question seems to be how to minimise it and still maintain stability.
I haven't seen you propose any way to minimize it, only how to hamfist a stable price based on incomplete information. What is your plan for this part of the equation? I've twice quoted how Decrits addresses this in this thread. I understand you're still developing your idea and I apologize for being harsh, but all of the concerns you state about what I've proposed are not really concerns and are things I have thought about and designed with in mind. You're using the same, weak arguments that everyone else does after getting an idea of what it is that is incorrect and not even bothering to quote the salient response points. I'd much prefer to argue my actual ideas rather than ones that look poor compared to yours; otherwise we go around in unproductive circles.
My initial idea, as quoted was to have a pure mordor coin during an early phase of bootstrapping and transaction fees level targetting after that, minimising the need for energy after that. A steady growth in transaction fees has a good chance of encouraging some miners to stay with the coin.
I appreciate the patience that you have shown with my ideas. Almost nothing I entered here is a criticism of decrits. Those are, my half baked ideas for a stable coin. I truly hoped that others would respond as well, to get more views. If the price of admission to a stablecoin thread is full understanding of decrits, then i can say that is a high price to pay.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1948749
Quote
By reducing the velocity of money--a drastic measure. Are you familiar with the MV=PQ equation? Either P (price level) or Q (goods and services available to the economy) could be increasing that results in an increased V (velocity of money) assuming that the M (money supply) is unchanged. You are worried only about P and do not see that Q has an identical effect from the standpoint of transaction fees. Designing a system with some linear idea of how the economy is likely to expand is destined to be wrong. It is not a predictable process by any measure. Adjusting V will not make P stable.
The idea is not to make P totally stable. The idea is to make MV move along a certain growth path, and keep P stable within a certain range. This will be the expectations anchor in the proposed currency, like the certainty of the money supply is with bitcoin
Quote
Then what do you think will happen when people are cut off from trying to spend their money?
If the specs are published and discussed, then anyone joining in a new currency will be aware. It is just like those who buy freicoin even after they are aware of the demurrage.
Quote
Quote
If there are more fees being spent and the system encourages it with printing more money, then even more fees will be spent and even more money will be printed until the coin collapses due to hyperinflation.
See the thing is, more fees being paid do not necessarily encourage the system to print more money, at least if we're talking about Decrits. Fees, on their own, have absolutely nothing to do with it. No, my comparison was not with Decrits. It was with a coin that printed more as transaction fees increased.
Quote
Only the willingness for a large group of people to invest time, hardware, and energy into minting new currency. For that to happen, Decrits must be worth more than their cost to produce. Even if a massively irrational actor decides to inflate the currency, all he has done has turned his effort into coins for other people. He cannot continue this behavior forever.
Quote
Quote
There needs to be a written down growth path for some indicator.
If you want instability, sure.For bitcoin, it is the monetary base itself.
Case-in-point.
Quote
I'm discussing the possibility of using the nominal transaction fees as an indicator.
The term I was looking for and used in the last para - expectations anchor. Every currency will need one.
Quote
Even spam protection throws this off. I would imagine you'd need a minimum transaction fee, Decrits proposes 0.01, so that microtransactions do not tax the network. If microtransactions are popular, this would throw off your indicator by several times as it would see much higher fees than actual activity. "Too many microtransactions this week--LOCK ALL THE COINS!" You could argue to use actual amounts instead, but then you run into the significant problem of off-chain transactions/clearinghouses being left out of your indicator (which is also the case with tx fees).
Nothing can be done about off-chain transactions, those are not visible to the chain. We have to design around them.
Quote
The way I look at it, there is a component of proof-of-work/mordor coin that has to be incorporated into every coin.
It sounds like you think that Decrits doesn't have a proof-of-work component. It does. Maybe you're generalizing. But the whole hyperinflation thing seemed to be directed at it.
It sounds like you think that Decrits doesn't have a proof-of-work component. It does. Maybe you're generalizing. But the whole hyperinflation thing seemed to be directed at it.
No, the hyperinflation point was directed towards a theoritical currency that had a feedback loop that encouraged more coinage as more transactions happened. I don't remember enough offhand about decrits to make such a comment about it.
Quote
The question seems to be how to minimise it and still maintain stability.
I haven't seen you propose any way to minimize it, only how to hamfist a stable price based on incomplete information. What is your plan for this part of the equation? I've twice quoted how Decrits addresses this in this thread. I understand you're still developing your idea and I apologize for being harsh, but all of the concerns you state about what I've proposed are not really concerns and are things I have thought about and designed with in mind. You're using the same, weak arguments that everyone else does after getting an idea of what it is that is incorrect and not even bothering to quote the salient response points. I'd much prefer to argue my actual ideas rather than ones that look poor compared to yours; otherwise we go around in unproductive circles.
My initial idea, as quoted was to have a pure mordor coin during an early phase of bootstrapping and transaction fees level targetting after that, minimising the need for energy after that. A steady growth in transaction fees has a good chance of encouraging some miners to stay with the coin.
I appreciate the patience that you have shown with my ideas. Almost nothing I entered here is a criticism of decrits. Those are, my half baked ideas for a stable coin. I truly hoped that others would respond as well, to get more views. If the price of admission to a stablecoin thread is full understanding of decrits, then i can say that is a high price to pay.
If anyone still thinks that *anything* based off of bitcoin is worthwhile: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/energy-consumption-will-become-an-issue-if-bitcoin-really-breaks-through-181759
Perhaps proposals that do not require proof of work at all for network security merit further discussion.
Perhaps proposals that do not require proof of work at all for network security merit further discussion.
Jump to: