Topic: [white paper] Purely P2P Crypto-Currency With Finite Mini-Blockchain - page 3. (Read 24202 times)

It is not clear what is the deal with the fees:
- Will the pruned blocks delete the already given mining fees, if so that would break transactions that spend the fees?
- Do the pruned blocks keep the mining fees transactions, how do they preserve the special coinbase transaction for this?
- Who pays for the new block that includes already mined transactions with spent fees? Does the new block offer just new transactions fees?
- Do you use recurring fees, thus double-triple-Xuple charge someone's account down to 0 and create artificial demurrage?


I ask only because it is unclear in the whitepaper, and it was one of the things that stopped me from joining the bounty efforts.

Note a jury convicted a hero who tried:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus#Arrest_and_conviction



Interestingly a recent article related Bitcoin as the successor to the Liberty Dollar:

http://lfb.org/today/the-domestic-terrorist-you-can-call-a-hero/

Two new thoughts since I last posted:

1. The more anonymous the cryptocurrency, the more likely that the corrupt in the captured political systems of the world today are going to be hiding their money in the anonymous system as the hunt for wealth spreads as the socialism's bankruptcy reaches the end game. USA, Europe, China, India, etc are all run by powerful groups who are hiding money offshore. For example, it is well known (e.g. Michael Pettis wrote about this) that the Chinese taipans move their exports through tax havens such as Singapore (at least on paper) to hide profits offshore, which they then keep hidden offshore. Also Chinese politicians move their ill-gotten wealth offshore, e.g. their wife (or wives) and kid(s) live in the Western countries in expensive homes and attend private schools, etc..

So while an anonymous crytocurrency can help defeat the power government has over the individual, it can also enable the corrupt in the system to escape oversight from the government. I imagine that as this global debt crisis comes to an end game, the populace is going to prosecute ill-gotten wealth. We see pronouncements from the G20 headed this direction. This will cause the nations to cooperate to hunt down all wealth. It will be indiscriminate (because of the irrationality of socialism) and all wealth will suffer, ill-gotten or otherwise.

Thus, it is desirable to have an anonymous cryptocurrency, because if it makes nations impotent, then they won't be able to come together to form a world government to hunt down all wealth. And the ill-gotten wealth will be transferred to those who are early into that anonymous cryptocurrency (if someone creates it).


2. If someone creates a cryptocurrency where only CPUs can mine effectively (or at least ASICs and FPGAs have no significant advantage), then the return on mining investment will likely be negative. Meaning many people will mine at small economies-of-scale with their PC and not notice they are consuming more resources than they are generating in coin rewards for mining. The implication is that it will be that much more difficult for a cartel to take over mining, when they have to do it basically for free and compete against the billions of computers of the populace.



I don't believe PoS systems are secure because my understanding is that the input entropy can be preimaged which selects which peer can decide which transactions are valid. Someone may eventually prove me wrong, yet for now I am operating under the expectation instead that PoS systems will be hacked if they ever become significantly valuable.

Also I believe the economics are collectivism, which rewards failure (laziness, lack of initiative, lack of ingenuity, etc). Paying someone just for letting money sit there. I prefer that miners must proactively manage their resources to help secure the network, e.g. PoW.

In short, I believe competition, not socialism, is the correct economic paradigm.


I don't believe this will secure the network.


If we couldn't count it, we would still live at the very low standard of the Kings of yore, with high mortality from bacterial infections, slow transportation, communication by courier instead of by wireless, etc..

Sorry but the illogic of Malthusians annoys me. How can some people be so out-of-touch with reality and history? And they repeat incessantly the same (what I believe to be) nonsense.

If the GDP stops growing for decades, that means humans are on a trajectory to end their existence (or at least tempt existential threat into a 600 year Dark Age), i.e. declining populations and/or stopping the development of new technology.


It is essential. I believe the network can't be secured without. I provided all my logic.


There is no such thing in our world as perfect equilibrium. I assume you are thinking of some state of non-change. There are dynamic oscillations around a median, but never you will find flatlines in the real world. And if you want to understand the math and physics for this, then you can read my blog. Flatline means a uniform distribution, which means no change, which means no competition, no contrast (black is only visible if you have gradations of white), no knowledge creation, and no life at all.

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html


Simple. Make so mining computers don't need to have the resources to deal with a multiple-GB blockchain (i.e. implement the Mini-blockchain), and eliminate the advantage of non-CPUs.

Competition can still reign, yet amongst computers with CPUs and reasonable resources, e.g. typical amount of DRAM.

AnonyMint, in some ways I cannot tell if you are responding to my post. You touched on a couple key words but then revert to your own talking points without much consideration of the ideas I've put forward. I have read all of your up thread posts and have forgotten nothing. I've read some of your posts in other threads but to be frank, there are a lot of intelligent people in the forum and to hang on just your words alone would detract from other interests and necessities in my life.

Regarding debasement, I tend to agree with you and I wonder why you do not speak more of a POS system. Essentially Peercoin and derivatives such as Novacoin and the like debase the currency by offering savers interest, though I believe it's closer to 1%. I really don't have a problem with this. It seems quite logical from a standpoint of how saving accounts appear for users with fiat and of course POS has other benefits as well.

However, I don't think that POS interest addresses the issue of spending and demurrage addresses it in a way which I think people find too punitive. However, simply paying a small percentage in tax on spending which affects all people equally and supports the network is something which I think all people are quite comfortable with. Having a coinage limit which forces people to either spend or move money after some years will encourage use of the coins as currency but will in no way affect people of few means like demurrage would and would not inflate the economy like interest producing POS would.

AnonyMint, we cannot count on ever growing GDPs and I assume that you are suggesting a method of debasement beyond the control of any governing body. An eternally inflating money supply only sounds marginally better than a deflating one. A system like Bitcoin's set maximum along with incentives to spend and recycle coins would keep the system in near perfect equilibrium.

As far as mining pools centralizing coin minting, this is a different problem which I'd like to see addressed in such way as to make it more egalitarian. I'm unsure of how this can be done but it would surely be beneficial both in terms of fairness and avoiding a 50%+ attack.

Demurrage from the perspective of the saver is sometimes not different than debasement. They are both a % per year of value taken from you. The former is explicit as you see your balance decrease, and the latter is obfuscated because the value of your money may drop as the money supply increases.

However, you don't sell your Bitcoin now even though the debasement is 11% per year, because the value of your BTC is increasing because demand for BTC is increasing.

So while a cryptocurrency is starting, the debasement can be very high and no one will protest because the value is rising.

When a cryptocurrency ever becomes mature and a significant portion of the global economy uses it, then no one will protest if the debasement is 3% and the GDP growth rate is 5%, because the value of their money will likely be increasing (by more than 2% due to rise in monetary velocity also).

You won't get a sustainably SECURE cryptocurrency without debasement.

Transaction fees don't insure sustained mining and protection against cartels, because even if you make them mandatory, a cartel can refund them, "spend your Bitcoins here at Amazon.com and we will refund the transaction fees".

They can offer to refund debasement too, but that won't prevent others from earning from mining. Whereas with tx fees, if they can get most customers to send their transactions to them, they can hold back all income from other miners.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I WRITTEN THIS!!! I think 50 times now. And still some readers never remember. (I wrote it upthread 2 or 3 times)

This is a very interesting thread and quite in depth. I have been keenly following Bitfreak's mini block chain proposal since it seems to solve one of Bitcoin's impending problems. I can see that there are other's in this thread that would agree there are other problems with Bitcoin and ideally a new cryptocurrency would address as many of those problems as possible, particularly the economic ones.

The deflationary model that Bitcoin follows is all well and good if you want a commodity and enthusiast  see no problem with the value increasing for eternity. However, posters here seem to recognize problems with this. Both a reluctance to spend (I have a few Bitcoins and I'm not spending them now if I don't have too.) and the inevitable concentration of wealth as super rich hoarders spend smaller and smaller fractions of their money to the poor masses for goods and services.

Thinking about these problems I looked at Freicoin the idea of demurrage would be a hard sell for most and one which make me uninterested in holding any. I also looked at Peercoin and I was quite enthusiastic about it's improvements, I think there are lessons which could be learned from it. My main problem with it is it's lack of professional marketing. Sunny King seems like a good guy but perhaps easily distracted. POS sounds like a good idea and the slight inflation which it involves seems like it would address some of the problem of Bitcoin, however, I do wonder if there could be an even better way.

Initially I disliked the idea of Bitcoin's fixed supply but I think with a slight tweak it could be the best solution. We want to have something which will act as a solid currency, encouraging people to spend their wealth but without penalizing them for saving as seems to be the case with Freicoin. We also want to avoid the problem of deflation from lost coins (government seizers, death of hoarders without wills, lost keys and mistaken transfers). Bitfreak suggested somewhere that coins in unused accounts should be removed and remind after some lengthy period of time (something like 100 years) just to avoid long term deflation but I see doing this on a smaller time scale as being beneficial in other ways.

I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%. Perhaps it's not important but I tend to think following Peercoin's model that tx fees are burned is a good one, so that they have to be re-mined. Having a percentage based tx fee might be more costly than Bitcoin for large transactions but could be cheaper for small transactions than the limit which is likely in Bitcoin once new coins are finished being mined. This would encourage greater adoption in developing markets.

Now, if unused coins are burned at an arbitrary time but smaller than one hundred years; I'd say 5 years. not only ensure that lost coins are not gone forever but also encourage spending without being punitive and without debasing the currency. People who use the currency on a daily basis would never be affected and people with large untouched saving could simply move the money, albeit at a lose of the tx fee. Obviously the client would need to use coins in a first in first out method and indications for coin age would need to be clear. Perhaps clients could automatically move coins if approaching the end of cycle. This would still be okay since the dead and people with lost keys are unlikely to keep a client going for 5 years.

Since you would know the maximum number of coins to be produced and you'd know roughly how many are in circulation you'd have a much better understanding of the health and value of the network and would be far less likely to have wild value swings due to uncertainty. Peercoin's per-block re-targeting system could be implemented in such way as to taking into account dynamics of the money supply.

I can imagine that the proposal of a set tx percentage and the necessity to move unused assets might be less preferential to some but it would strengthen the network and ensure that miners always have incentive to mine. Additionally, I think there are other small things which could be done to ensure ease of use which could allow for the easy adoption of what I believe would be a much better currency.

Sorry for being long winded. I was saving some of that up for awhile. I'd love to know some of your thoughts.  

I disagree. Bitcoin appears to me to be very taxable because it is not anonymous the way most non-experts apparently transact with it (judging from cursory summaries from published research of actual blockchain). All those (non-experts, who are not well studied on how to anonymize every aspect) who have transacted in Bitcoin may have a nasty surprise coming from the G20 after some years the government will present proof obtained from the NSA (and respective agencies in other countries), of their transactions and a huge tax bill with penalties and interest for not reporting capital gains (and required wealth report for Europeans, including expats). One can posit that the powers-that-be are letting Bitcoin honeypot go on for now to lay the entrapment.

And the data mining intelligence agencies also likely know who has gold and silver too. Most readers don't realize how data from their phone calls, SMS text messages, emails and internet usage, driving patterns, mailing patterns, credit card and banking records, etc. can be cross-correlated. Here is the expert:

https://www.schneier.com/essays-privacy.html

Also they can make it very difficult to sell your gold and silver later without revealing identity. People say there are always black markets, but that was before automated face recognition algorithms (Facebook uses one to identify you in your friend's photos), putting a camera on every light post, a tracking device in every smart phone and car's computer. Hitler and Stalin only dreamed they had the tracking capabilities that exist now.

Of course the bankrupt government will track down all the money they can that they think is owed to the government, and tack on criminal penalties to teach others not to try to circumvent the monopoly power of the government.


---------Definition of Government---------------
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5044&cpage=1#comment-411923


Yup. And as about as probable as the moon hitting the earth.


When that solution is available in comprehensible open source code and eloquently explained, that might be a preferred alternative to my proposal to at least perpetually fund PoW with debasement and to make the PoW not run faster on GPUs and ASICs (many doubt this is possible due to Litecoin's and Yacoin's Scrypt failures (update), but what if someone shows it is possible?).


Obama is saying now he will raise taxes, and the majority are cheering him on "to tax the rich" and give them free everything from the government. Ditto Europe, which taxes at double the Laffer limit. Spain even taxes sunlight, and France forces you to continue to run your company at a loss to pay for workers and health insurance, against your wishes to shut down the company before you deplete all your capital. Next logical step of the progression is they may force citizens to increase your (personal or corporate) debt to sustain operation of your loss making company.

There is an Iron Law of Political Economics (from Rancur Olsen's research):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

Basic problem is that everyone has an incentive to just suck from the collective and as this gains momentum it becomes impossible to keep any prosperity without the collective destroying it, thus at the end game everyone is sucking everyone, which often means genocide.

This is why this is a such an intractable problem, because eliminating taxes basically means war, because it will dismantle most of what people currently think society should be.

That is why I posit that any long-term successful decentralized coin effort is going to have to first win a war against society.

I would say that this is a property offered by almost any decentralized currency. Though there is the issue of mining cartels potentially replacing the government's role here, but I think the likelihood will be significantly reduced simply because cryptocurrency is open source, and the proletariat is now capable of fighting back with another currency which will be many magnitudes easier to adopt once one is already in place. This is a drastic option though. And if outside (hashing) power is used to control security and all money entering the system, it will be difficult to start a fledgling currency. If you separated security and mining, and made mining profitable for only short periods of time, you might be really on to a solution to this problem. *cough*


I don't think that this is as necessary as you think. Without being able to print money at will, the governments of the world will have to tell the world that they intend to take your productivity from you, not take it like a thief in the night with no one noticing via inflation. Imagine if Americans started seeing their salaries cut by half or more to fund wars for oil or to bail out wall street.

So you are thinking (in the mathematical abstract, although you may not have specifically modeled as a differential equation) in terms of a differential equation model (e.g. for your Decrits altcoin design) where you control the Q (damping factor) to optimize oscillation resonance (i.e. outcomes)?

We can't stop velocity and debt overshoot and the downwave bankruptcies, but we can accomplish three improvements with the improvements I suggest for Mini-blockchain + perpetual debasement PoW:

1. Remove the most obvious design flaw(s, both reducing blockchain overhead and 0% transaction fee, c.f. upthread for detailed explanations) that makes it easy for cartels to control mining.

2. Remove centralized control over the perpetual creation of money, thus reduce the ability to use crisises to reward those who control the government.

3. Make it very difficult for those who lend to be backstopped by insurance (and thus implicitly by the government) and thus they have to go bankrupt more frequently thus keeping bubbles small and more frequent, also preventing them from aggregating too much capital (they then have to deal with the economy-of-scale of small risk differences for each loan). One way this happens is if the coin eliminates the ability to tax. So there isn't any funding for collective insurance. Because realize that private insurance MUST always fail (another math to discuss) so public bailouts are inevitable. There are other points I could make on this...

Readers (I know Etlase2 knows this), please realize I am not talking about eliminating investors-at-risk from aggregating capital, i.e. I am not anti-capitalism. Rather I am saying that loaning money to anyone with a heartbeat is a low-knowledge activity that should not be backstopped by the public (government + insurance).

You can see that taxes (government) and insurance (along with inflated real estate prices by giving everyone with a heartbeat a 30 year mortgage which pulls 30 years of future demand into the present radically raising prices) are the major reason western countries are more expensive than developing countries which don't have high government as a percent of GDP, don't have well developed insurance industry, and don't have high debt levels as of percent of GDP:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/677362-whats-your-monthly-cost-to-live-in-thailand/

http://grandfather-economic-report.com/#govt

http://www.heritage.org/index/explore (sort by "Govt Spending")

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11855-total-debt-to-gdp.html
(Total Debt, which is more accurate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
(Public Debt, which misses much of the debt in countries such as China)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_gross_government_debt
(Future Public Debt, captures some of the rises in debt coming, yet misses many of classes of debt and contagion effects coming)

It's all about the change in velocity compared to the change in debt. Obviously we can't eliminate bankruptcy unless we eliminate debt, and that is a problem I do not think is trying to be solved yet. So the issue is how to minimize the eventual bad result of a velocity/debt change. A fixed supply of currency is probably the worst case scenario anyone could come up with (mayyybe second worst to modern government fiat), but it can function without an expanding supply.


Of course, the finer points are the amplitude and the duration, as I was getting at with that post.

My statement is accurate because velocity can't continue to increase forever.

People can only transact so fast, because it is assumed there must be some service or good provided.

This spiral demand is why at debt bubble peaks (probably circa end of 2015, with a possible extension to 2017 or so), everyone is running around like a chicken with head cut off, trying to move faster and faster, and there is massive misallocation of resources because of the race to transact faster thus sacrificing quality of (or rational necessity) of services and goods. (This is the Mises Crackup Boom)

You will see this race in the developing countries now. They are literally not sleeping, they are moving so fast to spend all the debt being pumped in.

Foreign Policy described this as "globalization":

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2001/09/01/will_globalization_go_bankrupt

Real Estate bubble is now spreading to where ever it wasn't already:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/04/real-estate-boom-in-switzerland-singapore-elsewhere/


You are referring to the Quantity Theory of Money and the summary equation:

M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP

Correct. Velocity can't increase perpetually, thus eventually base money supply has to increase or bankruptcies must ensue, which is where the world is now (final peak inflection point is 2015 - 2016 probably).


You are saying that hoarding gold collapses the velocity, and yes velocity is down -50% since 2007:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/20/they-are-calling-it-a-collapse-in-capitaism/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/10/deflation-inflation-stagflation/

Note we didn't have a rigid gold standard ever. These were always fractional reserve systems, e.g. the private banks in the USA in 1800s. The rigid gold system occurs as the people run from the debt collapse into gold and bury it which can end up in a Dark Age:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/21/what-about-gold-hoarding-the-reserve-dollar-status/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/16/destroying-the-world-economy/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/10/g20-meeting-to-raise-taxes/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/10/obamacare-another-nsa-spying-on-citizens/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/07/how-empires-nations-city-states-die-we-seem-to-be-right-on-schedule/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/27/so-what-does-the-future-hold/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/26/one-day-after-german-elections-truth-comes-out/


Agreed as I wrote upthread, the central banks debase in ways that aid the controllers of the goverment, i.e. the most rich and powerful:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/16/fed-balance-sheet-lack-of-oversight/


Very much agreed, except the switch may be to the new official digital currency offered by the powers-that-be after this current crisis ends 2033. Investors will want to buy government bonds then to recapitalized the destroyed global economy, since they will be paying say 18% or so. The official money will be the only way to do that,...

...unless we create a better decentralized currency before that, which a significant portion of society adopts and which wrecks havok on the plans of the powers-that-be.


And bankruptcies mean increased government as a share of GDP, because everyone wants the government to protect them from every bad outcome. And this is precisely what has happened:

http://grandfather-economic-report.com/#govt (see charts at first sublink comparing 1910 to today)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/30/debt-pension-crisis-fuel-behind-a-stock-rally/


Nothing in the universe operates as a flat-line equilibrium. Nature is always oscillating (wave-like) in nature.

Refer to the relevant linked sections of my two blog articles to better understand the physics of the universe and why it MUST BE THAT WAY else nothing at all would exist. A flat-line is no-contrast, no-knowledge creation, not-alive:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

See also explanation of waves in markets:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/13/defeating-the-business-cycle-a-goal-for-thousands-of-years/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/16/from-ireland-the-key-to-everything/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/04/manipulations-exceptions-one-dimensional-thinking/



Bankrupties are bad for the middle rich, but wonderful for the most rich and powerful who control the government, because the control of the government and the central bank manipulations increase during every debt crisis:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/16/ghost-companies-on-the-radar/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/14/european-banking-crisis-seizing-10-of-everyones-accounts-hello-cyprus/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/10/g20-meeting-to-raise-taxes/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/30/they-are-officially-eyeing-up-pensions/

"Never waste a good crisis" - various politicians and treasury officials


Eventually Bitcoin has to fail. Agreed. For numerous reasons. And that failure might be the opportunity for the governments to morph it in the next fiat digital currency which they control. That the Bitcoin mining can be so easily cartelized and is designed (whether intentional or not) to go that direction, is very relevant to this thread. As I have explained upthread.

Along the same lines as I mentioned earlier, this is not accurate. One base unit of currency on average can be used to pay off more than one debt unit if the velocity of money is high enough. The problem is that it is only a matter of when the velocity will drop from previous levels and necessitate a slew of bankruptcies as lots of credit/debt money disappears, and a cycle of economic recession starts. This doesn't only affect FRB, it affects a rigid gold standard (lol) too because then instead of not lending debt digits, you're hiding gold under the mattress. If you're rich and want to stay that way, you play scared. The Fed nowadays tries to fix this by offering cheap money, etc. it always ends up being a handout to the people who got us into this to get them out of it unscathed while everyone else suffers.

Bitcoin would work even worse because you can't dig up more bitcoins than allotted, so there is nothing coming from anywhere to spur new economic activity. It won't work this way in practice though (the "deflationary spiral") because people will just switch to a clone or back to fiat. The bitcoin wiki probably still says something along the lines of "it won't happen because the rich will buy stuff".


It's only a certainty under certain conditions. The wealthy play the game that has been passed down to them over the generations. But with a couple simple variable tweaks, you could totally change that game. For example, the idea behind demurrage and Freicoin, where money has a carrying cost, ergo not durable. I don't think it has a shot of working considering that it will (probably) never be legal tender, but if it were, the game would be played much differently.

Regardless, if all base money is earning interest and there is a fixed supply in a real world scenario, it can still work, it just involves a lot of bankruptcies in lieu of an expanding supply. Banks would find some equilibrium between bankruptcies and interest rates to be where the most profitable position is. Of course, when they fuck up, as they always will, the bankruptcies will increase significantly for some time. Bankruptcies in general are not good for anyone including the rich, so the tightly controlled system of inflation we use today is preferable. Without government spending of bitcoin to put money into motion and with more than half in the hands of the tiniest of percentage of the world's population, the trail to bitcoin adoption (or any deflationary money similar to it) can only be littered with bankruptcy.

Hey I want to stay on topic as much as the next freedom loving debt ridden  wage slave ...

Hmmmm.

Ok , well simply do this as an exercise , seperate the production and the currency .

If one does this , you will note that point 1 is redundant as there is no need for most of the people or even many of the people to be paying interest , interest is a payment for risked capital used for productive expansion.

Correctly viewed , it bears no relation to monetary expansion .

The rest I cant comment on except to say , the current scam we have operating of course all relates to issuance .

In case im not being clear issuance issuance issuance issuance issuance .

Did I mention the issue is with the manner of the issuance of the monetary supply ?

Once this is understood everything becomes much clearer. 

This is why they are going after the millionaires now, to confiscate (via their control of the government) what was aggregated since the last reset 1929 - 1955. This reset is 2007 - 2033. Every 78 years (3 x 26 reproductive maturity generations).

You have to Think Like a Bankster to understand how the globalists play the game:

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.10/thinklikeabanker.html

You see what Merkel did as soon as she was re-elected to her lame duck term, she cooperates to supra-nationalize the German banks to transfer control to the EU (Brussels), where the most wealthy and powerful have even more control:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/26/one-day-after-german-elections-truth-comes-out/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/20/growing-concern-about-the-federalization-of-europe/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/14/european-banking-crisis-seizing-10-of-everyones-accounts-hello-cyprus/

We are getting off-topic of this thread, and I don't have any strong disagreements with the rest of what you wrote. However, let me clarify this one point. I agreed with Etlase2 that in theory interest could simply be transferred, if not everyone is in debt, but mathematically it can't occur. I provided two orthogonal (to each other) reasons for the mathematical certainty that interest requires an expanding money supply:

1. If all base money is earning an interest, then the base money supply must expand, otherwise there doesn't exist enough base money to pay the interest.

2. Those who earn the interest are wealthy, and only spend a fraction of their passive income, thus they don't transfer it back to those who are paying interest. Thus, it is a mathematical certainty that eventually all of the money supply will be transferred to them, if we don't debase the money supply.

---

Note that with central bank control, the most wealthy and powerful debase the money supply sufficiently to destroy those earning interest (current ZIRP), and pass the debasement to themselves. These periodic resets are how they take all the interest that was aggregated by moderately wealthy who are less powerful including the disposable banking corporations. A grotesque racket.

"Thus maintaining a constant money supply doesn't guarantee deflation, unless it is everyone's unit-of-account, but in that case deflation leads to repulsion to investment, because why should I risk my capital when it is always increasing in value if I just bury it in a hole. But then production declines due to lack of investment and you get stagflation with deflation of production. Then why should I invest if the economy is declining. Sound familiar? (it is happening right now) It is a downward spiral that can lead to a Dark Age, if society doesn't confiscate the gold and create inflation (by devaluing gold) as FDR did to save us from a Dark Age. That is not to say I like the outcome of the New Deal socialism, but I am saying that if rational (Arlyn Rand self-interested) capitalists have their way, we end up in Dark Age"

You said you were tired when you wrote this ?

Then that is understandable,  be careful not to fall into someone elses narrative , humans are by extention :

1. Sociable
2. Productive

If capital was in a hole gaining money , some human would be in the hole throwing the extra out the sides , in fact they would invent a way to throw it out .

The point is as long as there are enough units to meet and exceed production and trade , largely the market will balance .

The division of units inherent in the crypto principal needs to be looked at in respect to actually points you yourself brought up and i will credit you with in regards to the fee structure centralization. 

So there are things to look at in this regard .

Id like to add that there is nothing inside the human dna that is compelling them towards rising prices , or away from dropping prices .

This is purely a market mechanism .

Having said that im not a proponent of the "gold standard" simply because of its manny other flaws .

Furthermore having said that , though,  I dont personally own 1 to 2000+ nuclear weapons so I wont be in the decision making process for this in the future .

Id say the Nations that do will be .

Still a srict gold type standard would net net be more equitable for most people across the world including by extension "westerners" than the present situation , so when you stand back and think about it , what are we doing ?

The trend is not on an improvement slope , I think everyone agrees.