5 ms·

'Basic income' which is not coupled to any expenditure (e.g. by mining) will have a tragedy of the commons problem in a pseudonymous system. In a pseudonymous

• djestrada 13y ago
  Answered to another question below, from my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm > I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
• witten 13y ago
  While this is a valid objection to the design as stated, there are solutions. For instance, the insight behind Bitcoin is that instead of the one-IP-one-vote policies of previous distributed protocols and the sock-puppeting that ensues, proof of work means that it's one-CPU-one-vote. And schemes like proof of stake go even further so it's one-coin-one-vote.
  • vbuterin 13y ago
    Bitcoin already has a basic income distributed via one-CPU-one-vote: it's called a mining reward. And if you distribute a basic income via one-coin-one-vote it's called an interest rate. The whole point of BI is to be per-person.
• NoodleIncident 13y ago
  djestrada 2 hours ago | link [dead] Answered to another question below, from my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm > I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
  • ajcarpy2005 13y ago
    Ah, so he's counting on the scarcity of the 'external' account balance (eg. Dollars) to keep people from cheating? But if there are dividends to be made which are proportional to # of Strangecoin accounts, not just the wealth flowing through them, it seems people could cheat that system. I think some level of verification should happen to limit people from gaming the system. Or...did he mean there would be a master Strangecoin account that must be verified and sub-accounts could be pseudonymous?
    • andrewaylett 13y ago
      More, I think, that while you may be able to create yourself a clique of accounts, artificially inflating the number of users, that clique will have no more links to accounts outside the clique than you would have if you only had a single account. Since your basic income depends on your interaction with the rest of the network, not just with your clique, you wouldn't gain any global advantage.
      • gus_massa 13y ago
        Where is the part that says that “your basic income depends on your interaction with the rest of the network”?