4 ms·

Compare that to the way new circulating currency is created in fiat systems and I think you'll change your mind. All fiat system create new currency through cha

Compare that to the way new circulating currency is created in fiat systems and I think you'll change your mind. All fiat system create new currency through chartered banks creating loans from reserves they don't have. There are only ~4500 chartered banks in the USA. That means all new currency is given to 4500 corporations and those corporations choose how to distribute it. This is a massively corrupt and unfair system. It's signficantly worse and more centralized than the way Bitcoin distributes new currency. At least with bitcoin actual humans get actual currency. In fiat actual human persons only get debt that mathematically can never be fully paid back. Unfortunately it's still the least worst way to run a "modern economy".

tromp 4y ago
I don't want to compare to fiat. I think bitcoin should have had a purely linear emission. No reward halvings. No early adopter advantage. No mere crumbs for later generations. Sure; it will take a century to get inflation down to 1%, but that means speculative use is strongly discouraged. As a result, its price would be much lower as would its environmental impact. While use as a peer-to-peer currency, its stated goal, would be largely unaffected.
- scottiebarnes 4y ago
  That's the cool thing about open source software. You can literally design your own fork, and then work to persuade people that your vision is better. You'll be called a shit coin. But over a long enough time horizon, someone will be right. > but that means speculative use is strongly discouraged Volatility is ironically a "feature". As it stands your system has no incentive for anyone to overcome the barriers of joining. You're proposing a better system from the outside, not the inside.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  For what it's worth, Dogecoin works this way.
  - tromp 4y ago
    No; they had 20x larger rewards in the first year. I only know of one PoW coin with a purely linear emission, and no financial rewards for its creators.
    - 3pt14159 4y ago
      Linear doesn't make sense in the very long term. Anyway, this is all besides the point. Now that governments have figured out they can colour coins these types of projects are doomed. Once you have a poisonable ledger and powerful entities see it in their interests to poison some of the branches of the tree then there is no actual advantage of using it. Not in the long term, I mean. Personally, I'm pleased. I do not want global, decentralized, electronic currencies.
      - tromp 4y ago
        Linear makes perfect sense in the very long term when yearly supply will just about balance the yearly coin loss.
throw0101a 4y ago
> This is a massively corrupt and unfair system. It's signficantly worse and more centralized than the way Bitcoin distributes new currency. The fiat currency I use on a day-to-day basis (CAD) has had much less volatility over last few decades than Bitcoin has had over the last months / years. And any changes that have occurred (even the recent ones) have been at a generally predictable rate that makes long-term planning (e.g., for retirement savings) achievable. Maybe Bitcoin (or whatever comes after it) will be able to achieve similar results eventually, and perhaps at that point I'll start seriously looking at it.
aaroninsf 4y ago
Almost every aspect of this critique is only coherent if you already accept the premises of crypto speculators and the political halo around it. Favorite LOL example: the unconsidered presumption that "centralized" is a pejorative. Second favorite example: that contemporary national debt is worthy of a stunned "don't have." Welcome to contemporary economic policy 101. Please find a seat close to the front so you can read the slides. I haven't thought much before about the overlap between analytic realism a la Quine and anglo-american analytic language philosophy c. 1970, and the libertarian foundations of the crypto woo woo, but I'm motivated now to take a closer look. It certainly makes the halo around the smart contract and the reverential tone of formulas like "in the code" and "on the chain" a lot more intelligible. (TLDR: in 1970 there were still philosophers who took seriously the that in some sense "truth" and in particular its assertion through language, corresponded to Things in the world, and indeed was a Thing, rather than e.g. language merely being a mechanism for agents to collaborate in information exchange through negotiated patterns... the difference being, in the real world, language is just a game played by agents who each model one another and presume intent and agency...)
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> all new currency is given to 4500 corporations and those corporations choose how to distribute it This is not true. You're describing the demand-deposit component of M1 [1]. Below that is M0, i.e. reserves and fiscal policy. One created by the Federal Reserve, the other by elected officials. Above it are marketable securities (M2, the most useful measure of money) and money-market fund assets (M3), a broad and de-centralised set of issuers. [1] https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/money-supply/ https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/money-supply/

tromp 4y ago

I don't want to compare to fiat. I think bitcoin should have had a purely linear emission. No reward halvings. No early adopter advantage. No mere crumbs for later generations. Sure; it will take a century to get inflation down to 1%, but that means speculative use is strongly discouraged. As a result, its price would be much lower as would its environmental impact. While use as a peer-to-peer currency, its stated goal, would be largely unaffected.

scottiebarnes 4y ago
That's the cool thing about open source software. You can literally design your own fork, and then work to persuade people that your vision is better. You'll be called a shit coin. But over a long enough time horizon, someone will be right. > but that means speculative use is strongly discouraged Volatility is ironically a "feature". As it stands your system has no incentive for anyone to overcome the barriers of joining. You're proposing a better system from the outside, not the inside.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
For what it's worth, Dogecoin works this way.
- tromp 4y ago
  No; they had 20x larger rewards in the first year. I only know of one PoW coin with a purely linear emission, and no financial rewards for its creators.
  - 3pt14159 4y ago
    Linear doesn't make sense in the very long term. Anyway, this is all besides the point. Now that governments have figured out they can colour coins these types of projects are doomed. Once you have a poisonable ledger and powerful entities see it in their interests to poison some of the branches of the tree then there is no actual advantage of using it. Not in the long term, I mean. Personally, I'm pleased. I do not want global, decentralized, electronic currencies.
    - tromp 4y ago
      Linear makes perfect sense in the very long term when yearly supply will just about balance the yearly coin loss.

throw0101a 4y ago

> This is a massively corrupt and unfair system. It's signficantly worse and more centralized than the way Bitcoin distributes new currency. The fiat currency I use on a day-to-day basis (CAD) has had much less volatility over last few decades than Bitcoin has had over the last months / years. And any changes that have occurred (even the recent ones) have been at a generally predictable rate that makes long-term planning (e.g., for retirement savings) achievable. Maybe Bitcoin (or whatever comes after it) will be able to achieve similar results eventually, and perhaps at that point I'll start seriously looking at it.

aaroninsf 4y ago

Almost every aspect of this critique is only coherent if you already accept the premises of crypto speculators and the political halo around it. Favorite LOL example: the unconsidered presumption that "centralized" is a pejorative. Second favorite example: that contemporary national debt is worthy of a stunned "don't have." Welcome to contemporary economic policy 101. Please find a seat close to the front so you can read the slides. I haven't thought much before about the overlap between analytic realism a la Quine and anglo-american analytic language philosophy c. 1970, and the libertarian foundations of the crypto woo woo, but I'm motivated now to take a closer look. It certainly makes the halo around the smart contract and the reverential tone of formulas like "in the code" and "on the chain" a lot more intelligible. (TLDR: in 1970 there were still philosophers who took seriously the that in some sense "truth" and in particular its assertion through language, corresponded to Things in the world, and indeed was a Thing, rather than e.g. language merely being a mechanism for agents to collaborate in information exchange through negotiated patterns... the difference being, in the real world, language is just a game played by agents who each model one another and presume intent and agency...)

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> all new currency is given to 4500 corporations and those corporations choose how to distribute it This is not true. You're describing the demand-deposit component of M1 [1]. Below that is M0, i.e. reserves and fiscal policy. One created by the Federal Reserve, the other by elected officials. Above it are marketable securities (M2, the most useful measure of money) and money-market fund assets (M3), a broad and de-centralised set of issuers. [1] https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/money-supply/ https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/money-supply/