3 ms·

I think the big breakthrough with cryptocurrency will be when someone invents a "Basic Income" cryptocurrency. I've been thinking about it for a while, and hav

I think the big breakthrough with cryptocurrency will be when someone invents a "Basic Income" cryptocurrency. I've been thinking about it for a while, and have even started writing up a specification (may not need to write the actual implementation). I think it's a tricky problem, but I'm almost 100% certain now that it's probably going to be invented and used in the near future. EDIT: And by "near future" I mean "within 5-10 years".

rothbardrand 9y ago
This doesn't really make sense. The thing that gives cryptocurrencies value is that they are scarce. The thing that gives them security is proof of work, allowing a distributed consensus algorithm that is hard to game. Cryptocurrency isn't a source of magic money in the sense that you could tap it for a "basic income" type scheme-- where the recipients are not doing anything to earn it. In cryptocurrency every actor in the system has a job that they do, namely, miners mine and that's how they get paid. I'm not saying its impossible, it just seems like it doesn't make sense at first look.
- perpetualcrayon 9y ago
  I agree that it does seem counter-intuitive given what we've come to expect a cryptocurrency to be.
  - setr 9y ago
    Thats.. not a sufficient response..
    - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
      I apologize, but when I double-checked I didn't see a specific question in the parent comment.
      - setr 9y ago
        Its more of >What if we do this thing; its tricky but I think its viable >I dont believe it'd work because reasons A, B >I agree its pretty counter-intuitive, isn't it? You just kind of skipped right over the part where you'd actually address the proposed issues with the idea..
    - rothbardrand 9y ago
      He may have answers to those issues, and I understand he may want to keep them under his hat until they are thought out. But know this-- if you want a chance at success, peer review is going to be needed when you are ready. And a lot of testing.
      - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15544554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15544554
- anonymous5133 9y ago
  It has also already been tried and basically failed. The coin was called Auroracoin. It has a 5 million market cap after a few years.
candles12345 9y ago
It's an interesting idea. Did you write something to explains how it produces and maintains an economy?
- perpetualcrayon 9y ago
  There is "work" that needs to be done, but "work" means something completely different.
  - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
    The basic idea is that each participant can distribute 'X' # of coins to every other participant in the currency. The caveat is that each individual needs to be held accountable for the choices they make as to who they "vouch" for when distributing currency. That's not to say the amount distributed can change in some obvious way. My current thinking is that if person A, B, C say person X gets money, then they get the same "agreed upon" (or fixed) distribution as everyone else. On the other end the coins that are created have a "depreciation" built in. Something that depreciates 100% in 5 years won't appear too valuable. But something that depreciates over the course of an entire lifetime will feel plenty valuable to the people who are the original recipients. So in other words my current target is 100 years.
    - nikcub 9y ago
      If you can verify one person as being a single participant then you've stumbled onto something as big as Bitcoin itself
      - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
        That's definitely an important objective. Although admittedly it won't be as pure as something like Bitcoin. I'm targeting what you could loosely equate to a scientific proof of existence, not a mathematical one.
    - rothbardrand 9y ago
akvadrako 9y ago
There is GrantCoin
lend000 9y ago
There are multiple, including GrantCoin.

rothbardrand 9y ago

This doesn't really make sense. The thing that gives cryptocurrencies value is that they are scarce. The thing that gives them security is proof of work, allowing a distributed consensus algorithm that is hard to game. Cryptocurrency isn't a source of magic money in the sense that you could tap it for a "basic income" type scheme-- where the recipients are not doing anything to earn it. In cryptocurrency every actor in the system has a job that they do, namely, miners mine and that's how they get paid. I'm not saying its impossible, it just seems like it doesn't make sense at first look.

perpetualcrayon 9y ago
I agree that it does seem counter-intuitive given what we've come to expect a cryptocurrency to be.
- setr 9y ago
  Thats.. not a sufficient response..
  - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
    I apologize, but when I double-checked I didn't see a specific question in the parent comment.
    - setr 9y ago
      Its more of >What if we do this thing; its tricky but I think its viable >I dont believe it'd work because reasons A, B >I agree its pretty counter-intuitive, isn't it? You just kind of skipped right over the part where you'd actually address the proposed issues with the idea..
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    He may have answers to those issues, and I understand he may want to keep them under his hat until they are thought out. But know this-- if you want a chance at success, peer review is going to be needed when you are ready. And a lot of testing.
    - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15544554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15544554
anonymous5133 9y ago
It has also already been tried and basically failed. The coin was called Auroracoin. It has a 5 million market cap after a few years.

candles12345 9y ago

It's an interesting idea. Did you write something to explains how it produces and maintains an economy?

perpetualcrayon 9y ago
There is "work" that needs to be done, but "work" means something completely different.
- perpetualcrayon 9y ago
  The basic idea is that each participant can distribute 'X' # of coins to every other participant in the currency. The caveat is that each individual needs to be held accountable for the choices they make as to who they "vouch" for when distributing currency. That's not to say the amount distributed can change in some obvious way. My current thinking is that if person A, B, C say person X gets money, then they get the same "agreed upon" (or fixed) distribution as everyone else. On the other end the coins that are created have a "depreciation" built in. Something that depreciates 100% in 5 years won't appear too valuable. But something that depreciates over the course of an entire lifetime will feel plenty valuable to the people who are the original recipients. So in other words my current target is 100 years.
  - nikcub 9y ago
    If you can verify one person as being a single participant then you've stumbled onto something as big as Bitcoin itself
    - perpetualcrayon 9y ago
      That's definitely an important objective. Although admittedly it won't be as pure as something like Bitcoin. I'm targeting what you could loosely equate to a scientific proof of existence, not a mathematical one.
  - rothbardrand 9y ago

akvadrako 9y ago

There is GrantCoin

lend000 9y ago

There are multiple, including GrantCoin.