A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

Post by Scarblac » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

sbenitoj wrote: post #252

hanniabu wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes sense. You have an economy built on an economic model rather than an economic model based on an economy. With the latter you're constantly guessing and tweaking the model and roughly every 10 years there's a crash and the economists say okay, NOW we have it perfect and we'll never get it wrong again. Why do you need an unlimited money supply? The only thing causing these shocks is that the economy is…

Exactly, any supply of money will do, no need to permanently increase the amount in circulation — this is why the market settled on gold (which has an inherently low inflation rate due to the difficulties of mining) and impossible to pass off counterfeit gold at scald.

Post by 908087 » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

ur-whale wrote: post #314

sbenitoj wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely — I would gladly trade all my gains for a world where governments have no control over the creation and regulation of money.

> I would gladly trade all my gains for a world where governments have no control over the creation and regulation of money. Indeed. And not just because they're absolutely terrible at it: giving control over money creation to a government is like giving a drug addict the keys to the heroin factory.

Post by Scarblac » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

sbenitoj wrote: post #333

ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A low, but positive, inflation rate is of critical importance. > Any supply of money will do. That is just nonsense. If you have a fixed money supply, given that economic growth is happening, would result in a naturally deflationary currency. That is a terrible place to be for the system as a whole as no one has any incentives to spend or invest in anything as money itself will simply gain value over time just sittin…

Prove it, show me the world where we had a stable monetary supply that resulted in people having no incentive to invest in anything — where’s the experiment? Again, you HAVE to spend money to live (otherwise you die). It’s impossible to live without food and water, most people want to live in a house, most people want entertainment, etc. None of those things can be had without spending money. Also, if your argument i…

Post by kadendogthing » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #351

kadendogthing wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Perfectly fine as tech beanie babies.

As a POC of an alternative medium of paiement. As an idea, a hope, the starting point for iterating on the future of money. As a way to make the society think and debate. And as all that, I think it had been successful.

Post by hanniabu » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

sbenitoj wrote: post #340

hanniabu wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No incentive to support the network if there's no block rewards. The transaction fees are not sufficient and just meant to prevent spam. It's also better to tax the network as a whole (through this set inflation) than to tax for each usage.

I misunderstood you at first. That’s an interesting speculation, but it remains to be seen what will happen when inflation is near zero. If people value transacting on the network, then they will pay the necessary fees to keep it running. If they don’t then it will go down. I suspect this isn’t the big issue people think it is, regardless there’s no way to “prove” that transaction fees won’t be enough — everyone from…