Topic: What makes a currency meaningful? - page 2. (Read 3101 times)

It seems to me limits on accumulation prevent it from being widely adopted. If as a technical limitation there is a limit to how much wealth you can have accumulated in the coin, why would you even bother with it in the first place?

Governments are like parents. When they're good they can make life alot easier for everyone but when they're bad, well, we have history to instruct us. The problem we have nowadays is that even if good people get into a position to govern, they don't have the power. That power has been usurped by mulitnational interests who have found an end around the democratic process and have taken the sovereignty from the people who fought for it. Indeed, they now instigate the wars when it suits them in their pursuit of the new world order. The banks are only one of the vehicles in this process but perhaps the most critical to correct. The best way to correct the banks is to compete with their currency and the direction taken so far is the right one but widespread, global adoption is critical and mechanisms must be in place to assure that this cryptocoin does not just become another evil. I believe this is achievable and have suggested a current coin on which to model after or build upon. Here are the features this new coin should have:
1. Limits on accumulation.
2. High efficiency for both transactions and network loads.
3. A useful function like maintaining a cryptographic library of all the worlds documents.
4. An unerasable audit trail of transactions and a built in mechanism for public policy decision making.
These are the top priority characteristics for a currency that can fix the world. There are many ways to mess these up in their implementation but if done properly, humanity can be saved many of its currently manufactured ills. It should be obvious to most reading here why the feature list above is critical but if anyone needs a clarification of what these features will address, the discussion herein is likely to bring them to light. I will certainly do my part.

Einsteinium News
The very fact that it is so low profile makes it fail the requirement specified here. As far as its philanthropy is concerned, how are the 'good deeds' arbitrated?

I know of one coin [I won't mention the name] that is extremely 'altruistic', accessible to all, and has an extremely low buy-in price (3sat).   

The coin supply is unlimited, anytime you do something good you get an arbitrary amount of coin.  In the absence of actual, or at least perceived scarcity the true value will plummet. 

Utility
is the key to cryptocurrency success.

I understand your first point, and I agree that wealth is not the same as financial knowledge. It's just the easiest way to draw the line. I disagree with the intent of the rule though. It's not to protect the rich, it's to protect the not rich. The reason the SEC is necessary is because people take advantage of other people. The SEC regulates investments to hold accountable people who would defraud investors. The reason they don't let the non-rich invest in the riskiest types of securities is they can least afford it if the venture fails, and far, FAR more of them fail than not.

It would be one thing if people accepted responsibility for themselves when they invest in a company that goes bust, but they don't. The public has demanded "protection" from people who would structure deals in a way so as to take advantage of the financially less sophisticated, so the SEC has arbitrarily decided that level of wealth equals sophistication. From the SEC's perspective, alhough I disagree with the method of implementation, I agree with the intent of the rule, which is to keep less sophisticated people from biting off more than they can chew or being taken advantage of. From the perspective of personal responsibility and freedom, I disagree with the rule on principal. I think people should be free to invest in whatever they want. With that type of system though, the instances of fraud will be much higher. It's just a question of whether the trade off is worth it.

jkoil
I'm glad you see it the same way. Read below and tell me what you think.

username18333
I looked into Writcoin and it has some interesting features but its distribution and other characteristics make it less than ideal. We need to develop something new but not launch it until there is true mass participation. We need a very long hype period where just about everyone knows about it before it is launched. Any people without steady access to computers at the time of launch will be allowed to register to participate via email where they can be assigned to a philanthropic benefit mining pool. Information about all holders of this coin will be in a database encrypted by all participating computers. Funding for this pool and its maintenace will be assigned to a vote of all participants. There will be an event within the next few years that will make people eager for an alternative currency and this coin should be ready for launch when this happens. As I understand it, there is already a Scottish enterprise which has a coin that provides a document encryption protection scheme so we have a model to follow or a platform to develop upon.

That Bitcoin's future is probably true. It cannot become a currency of all. It is owned by too few people and its current value is too high for being able to improve its distribution - before other currencies go over it.

(Emphasis added.)

Writcoin™ allows the value of its transaction outputs to exceed their inputs. Writcoin, thus, democratizes money creation unto anarchy and places the keys to the kingdom within the hands of the kingdom itself.

RodeoXExactly! When there are more competitors for labor the probability of gainful employment rises and so does social mobility (aka, freedom).

El Emperador
This is becoming less true daily and could change immediately with a few pen strokes.

username18333
Currency can not regulate consumption when it is unregulated. Where is your say in how much money is created to circulate? With the power to create currency in the hands of so few, all asset prices can be dictated and any asset can be controlled. The problem with central banks is one big part of all we need to address. President JFK was the last to try and Lincoln before him had partially succeeded with his greenbacks. Jackson was the only past leader to take them on and win. If his soul is bearing witness to the state of affairs today, he is suffering.

I see what your saying but the implication that having wealth equals financial knowledge is false. If one were born mentally challenged but a millionaire he/she would qualify while another person with an advanced degree in economics will not qualify if they are not rich. The only reason why this law exists is to protect the wealthy from normal people entering into investments.
Why for example can't a normal person invest $500 in a startup? Even if their poor stupid self invests unwisely, they wont go broke. And there is nothing to keep a wealthy person from investing in a ridiculously bad option. It is not about protecting anyone. It is about the fact that the wealthy do not work for a living, they invest. If everyone could do that then the rich would face competition from the people who are supposed to be busy making them money. 

Bitcoin can't be accessible to all, because - to exploit all its potential - people need to use internet and large areas in the world aren't covered by Internet.
Even if one day all the world will be covered by Internet connections, there may be people who don't like to use Internet or aren't able to use it.

Money serves to regulate consumption and, thus, comprises failings thereabout.

dank
That is what Socrates and others thought so you're in good company but baby steps first.

BADecker
I concur with the ideals of your reply but such broad guidelines are meaningless without mechanisms to check those freedoms before they become freedoms to oppress. I would add the following refinements:
The accumulation should be limited in some way by a finite time frame so as to discourage any degradation of monetary velocity and the accumulation should be subject to a boundary for the same reason. In a sense, bitcoin already has this in the form of the 50% paradox but I suggest this could be made a flexible barrier instead of a finite failure wall. The politicians for the most part are victims of the monied interest and only a small minority are direct agents. The vast majority of democratically elected leaders in most countries are quite clueless or of insufficient metal to represent their voters will. Sadly, most sovereign nations are subject to the will of a dark monarchy and have yet to become aware of this reality. The elected leaders do as they are told and sign what is before them by suggestion of lobbyists and seated peers without due consideration of how their consituents will be effected. What most cryptocurrencies have above other forms of currency is a clearer audit trail and a greater potential for humane and equitable use but only if we begin to consider these in their design.


jaysabi
Yes and the whole "know your client" impetus has been perverted into something much more insidious but that is for another discussion. As for what is possible, I am much more optimisitic than you.

BitmosYou have succinctly summed up the point I am making. Ghandi wisely said, "There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for their greed". There comes a point where accumulation goes past the point of any sane requirement of safety and this is what needs to be indoctinated for us to evolve and very possibly to survive as a species.

zetaray
I understand you but isn't it time to aspire for something more?

Holliday
Yes, people are in despair and have acquired a systemic sense of futility so your observation should not surprise you. The bar of the "American Dream" has been lowered to include everyone at the expense of the middle class. Without any middle or upper middle class, the probability of a competitor to the entrenched class arising from the populace decreases to insignificance and this degrades the well being of all those who must then pay the remaining oligarchs. Things have degraded even worse than this. Even if you come up with something world changing you will never get it to market. See Stanley Meyer.

RodeoX
I think they can be made to do so and that is what this discussion is aimed at.

It's a real pleasure to read you. Thank you. I permitted myself to highlight a certain passage that I liked particularly. Do you think that I could rephrase it by shafting the wheat from the weed? Was Christians persecution about people trying to be righteous (who said they succeed;)), who only wanted to do business among themselves, the crooks would be pissed off, as any medium of exchange that they may used may get voided in a sec, even more with the backing of the imperial guard... sad than even the prospect of a full success in any transformation of currency - society may already be to late for any real change... toxicity. But I think it's still cool to try what ever the results, the potential rewards outweight so much the potential risk, that frankly there isn't many others options... what's cooler is that those options are evolving very fast...

The absence of currency.

What makes a currency meaningful? Honesty. Privacy. Freedom to use it to grow and accumulate by everyone.

In other words, a currency is a commodity that makes life easier for those who use it. Life gets easier for the honest, naive people. Life gets easier for the crooks.

Making currency meaningful isn't about currency. It's about freedom and honesty... lifestyle among the people.

For example, you hear the preaching of the politicians. So, you vote them into office. Then, they do whatever they want, lie through their teeth, etc. But you keep on believing them. Suckers!

The reason Bitcoin might have success is that it is honest in a way that is difficult to corrupt. The reason Bitcoin might fail is the same one that the whole country fails by. People would rather believe the corrupt government and media, to their own demise, than use something private and honest like Bitcoin.

Somebody might say, But Bitcoin can be used for all kinds of corruption. Fiat currency is corruption incarnate the way it is being used around the world by the big banks and the governments.

The point of identifying who a "qualified investor" is isn't to exclude poor people from investments, it's about identifying a situation where there are no investors the SEC needs to protect. There are certain securities or transactions that don't need to be registered if they deal with only qualified investors. The point is to identify a transaction that doesn't need SEC oversight or registration since a "qualified" investor is deemed to have the experience or resources at his disposal to figure out for himself if the deal is legitimate or or not. It's true the SEC equates financial sophistication with wealth or level of income, but that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable correlation to me. The question comes down to financial sophistication, and the SEC has decided that the rich are more financially sophisticated than the poor, and are able to better understand the risks of investing in an unregistered security, which is riskier than a registered security. To a lesser extent, this identifies situations where the government doesn't need to get involved so it can lessen its regulatory burden, but it's mostly about situations where the government doesn't have to oversee or register the securities because everyone involved can take care of themselves.

hashing = "mining"   "sharing" = mining   "loving" = mining   wasting = mining   living = mining   as long as it's not: work makes you free  , I think I can adapt.


A currency shouldn't at least not be a mean of extraction. I don't think that electricity per se is the problem, who doesn't want an iphoneclone... a mini solar panel and you are good to go... machine build...


Do you think it can be trained? Or structurally engineered? How they will try to consolidated, aggressive to the point that BTC and clones had to come. Their is only value in trust in the men next to you, carrying the arms needed to defeat your opponents, in case such ones, doesn't want to discuss and solve in a consensual way your problems (and his as of you standing in arms before him, otherwise he would laugh...). It's called plantation transition, once the salve rise, necessarily certain formers masters will have to readjust to the new paradigm. The real question is what can they keep. Some argue that their life is already too much due to the damage inflicted. I couldn't agree more.


woooh, I like this spirit of realism. I could just add that serving as cannon folders and prostitutes is the cherry-icing on the cake (depending on the taste). Greed ain't a sin, wanting more cake because you are hungry while the others are on diet ( ) could be even describe as helping.


scarcity of resources = stress; life = how do you cope with this stress, becoming a sub-animal or a human. don't wait, time is ticking for both as certain. Greed is allowed to grow like poverty. It's a political choices, that has many advantages for sub-animals in terms of reproduction and others earthly advantages. Very common among the human specie. Does it have DNA markers, I don't believe so, it's more from the spirit than the flesh, sadly?


Always? never have been the men whose pockets have been the fullest the kindest? there must be something going on here... Maybe only thieves and liars can prosper in the world of sauron? Happily pockets of the dead are always emptied, sooner or later. But it doesn't help in your fast electronic societies.

I think that we don't need one coin, but as many until maximal "efficiency" is reached in the size of each group. Certain groups converging towards certain conflicting interest will have to resort to violence to attempt to go trough the "iron wall" or die trying.

Thank you for your post it's quite rare to read such beautiful phrase as evil swapping, I thank you very much to have dared to express your opinions, that reflect a sure and certain comprehension of "money" as it's called in the real estate game called monopoly.

A currency is meaningful once it's used further - help - foster the type of future you want your children to live in. Otherwise it's just a scam attempt by your opponents to conquer your land, or worst.

A currency is a medium of exchange, not an income redistribution tool. Cryptos need electricity to send and receive. Many parts of the 3rd world do not have electricity easily available. So, cryptos will not solve poverty or inequality.