Universal Dividend and Web of Trust for Dashcoin

Do you like a Universal Dividend and a Web of Trust to be incorporated in Dashcoin?

  • Total voters
    57
Status
Not open for further replies.
demo said:
When mining cryptocoins, you do nothing positive for normal people. Mining has only a negative effect, you are adding polution to earth because of the heat of the computer.Mining means you are solving a useless mathematical quiz, and also you are not doing it by yourself so it is not your personal work or effort. It is the computer which mines, and not you. Mining is tottaly geeky. You are not considered to be worthy of respect when mining, it is just like bulding the babel tower, it is a useless act. If this is what you believe, that no one is entitled to receive money for doing nothing (positive), then the same applies to miners also.

Mining (and miners) is yet another flaw inherited by bitcoin. It is yet another failure in bitcoin's initial design. Future cryptocoins , they will use bitcoin's blockchain, they will use a mathematical form in order to become scarce (as it has been introduced in bitcoin), but they will not rely on the difficulty of mining, neither they will depend on miners. The digital coins of the future they will be produced instantly although being scarce, they will be distributed to their first proponents, and then a universal dividend and a basic income written in the protocol will distribute those coins among generations.
Click to expand...

Yes, mining is quite "geeky" which is why most people don't do it. But it is not worthless, nor is it below anyone's dignity to mine -- mining is an essential part of how the decentralized network is even possible at all. Frankly, if your goal is to eliminate mining altogether, then neither Dash nor Bitcoin is the project for you. You seem to have quite the vision of how the digital coins of the future will work. I think you will find (and have found already, considering this poll) that the Dash community does not agree with your model. I appreciate your input, but you may want to consider that Dash might not be the best fit for you. I hope that in time you may come to change your mind, and that our network will prove to be both sustainable and fair, but if not, no hard feelings.
 
TroyDASH said:
Yes, mining is quite "geeky" which is why most people don't do it. But it is not worthless, nor is it below anyone's dignity to mine -- mining is an essential part of how the decentralized network is even possible at all.
Click to expand...

If you really care about a decentralized network of coins, then this network must be decentralized not only in space, but also in time. If this is the case and you really care about a decentralized network of coins, then why almost all mining occurs in a specific time frame? Why there are so few coins left to be mined in the future? This is not decentralization at all! The mining of dash (and of bitcoin) is initially designed to be a centralized one. You may insist of naming your centralization by using the word "decentralization", but this is just a problem of definition, and everybody undestands your fraud. However you call centralization, even if you choose to name it "decentralization", it always remains centralization. Because the meaning is what it matters, and not the word you are using.

I think you can have a decentralized network of cryptocurrency that do not depends on mining. For example you can mine all coins at the begining, then distribute the coins using a random faucet. Or alternatively, introduce a universal dividend, or a basic income, or an air drop or whatever. In all cases decentralization must occur in space-time and not only in space, otherwise it is a fake decentralization.
 
demo said:
If you really care about a decentralized network of coins, then this network must be decentralized not only in space, but also in time. If this is the case and you really care about a decentralized network of coins, then why almost all mining occurs in a specific time frame? Why there are so few coins left to be mined in the future? This is not decentralization at all! The mining in dash (and bitcoin) is initially designed to be a centralized one. You may insist of naming your centralization by using the word "decentralization", but this is just a problem of definition, and everybody undestands your fraud. However you call centralization, even if you choose to name it "decentralization", it always remains centralization. Because the meaning is what it matters, and not the word you are using.

I think you can have a decentralized network of cryptocurrency that do not depends on mining. For example you can mine all coins at the begining, then distribute the coins using a random faucet. Or alternatively, introduce a universal dividend, or a basic income, or an air drop or whatever. In all cases, decentralization must occur in space-time, and not only in space.
Click to expand...

There will always be mining though. And, even though the number of coins being created from the blockchain decreases over time, the value of those coins increases over time, and miners will eventually be rewarded more though transaction fees. I think you may be confused about what it means to have an ultimately deflationary currency.
 
TroyDASH said:
There will always be mining though. And, even though the number of coins being created from the blockchain decreases over time, the value of those coins increases over time, and miners will eventually be rewarded more though transaction fees. I think you may be confused about what it means to have an ultimately deflationary currency.
Click to expand...

The value of digital coins may increase over time, but the reason for this is secondarily because of their scarcity, and primarily because of the trust people have in them. The trust increases, thats why the value increases. However the scarcity may increases, if the trust happens to decrease, then the value is falling. There are many other scarce items, and many other mathematical forms and scarce strings that can solve a mathematical problem, that people do not trust them as coins, and those scarce items or mathematical strings have no value at all.

I didnt said that the number of coins being created from the blockchain should increase over time. The reverse is the correct, the number of coins being created from the blockchain should be stable, and this is essential in order for the coin to be scarce and in order to avoid a deflationary currency. This stable number of coins should be created almost instantly, it should be distributed to the initial wallets (this tends to be also dash's case, as long as it is more and more difficult to mine coins in the future), but after the creation of this stable number of coins, then the protocol should be responsible to distribute SOME coins across present and future wallets, so that a real space-time decentralization to become feasible. Τhis distribution may be the universal dividend, or the basic income, or maybe a faucet and any other random method. But in any case, the amount of coins to be distributed should be voted as a percentage, and should not be decided as a hardcoded percentage number.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
The value of digital coins may increase over time, but the reason for this is secondarily because of their scarcity, and primarily because of the trust people have in them. There are many other scarce items, and many other mathematical forms and scarce strings that can solve a mathematical problem, that people do not trust them as coins, and those scarce items or mathematical strings have no value at all.

I didnt said that the number of coins being created from the blockchain should increase over time. The reverse is the correct, the number of coins being created from the blockchain should be stable, and this is essential in order for the coin to be scarce and in order to avoid a deflationary currency. This stable number of coins should be created almost instantly, it should be distributed to the initial wallets (this tends to be also dash's case, as long as it is more and more difficult to mine coins in the future), but after the creation of this stable number of coins, then the protocol should be responsible to distribute SOME coins across present and future wallets, so that a real space-time decentralization to become feasible.
Click to expand...

Wait, so do you think the number of coins being created needs to permanently be the same over time towards an unlimited maximum, or decrease over time towards a maximum? You do realize that even if we allocated, say, 3% of the budget for a system such as this, the entire budget size itself will decrease over time because the block rewards will be smaller. Even if the percentage remains constant, the total number of coins being distributed would get less and less, and even smaller amount per person as more people enter the network.

3% of the budget right now is 203 DASH per month, and suppose there are only 1000 individual DASH users in the entire network, and suppose we (somehow) implemented a way to actually securely verify that everyone is actually unique and did not register multiple times. It works out to 0.2 DASH per user per month, which only gets smaller with more users signing up for free. This seems to me like *way* more trouble than it is worth. DASH users can already use Node40 to get a piece of a masternode reward though the proof of stake, and we don't even need to think about proving "individuality"..
 
demo said:
No.
People cannot get a dozen of fake proofs of individuality when those credentials are issued by states like US or EU. It is almost impossible to fake them, because on these credentials much more imporant things depend, and those states ensure that the digital credentials are reliable.

Also, people cannot get a dozen of fake proofs of individuality when a cryptoparty assembly takes place and people put their credentials in a physical ballot box. If it is considered almost impossible to fake a state's digital credential, in the case of cryptoparty assembly it is 100% impossible to fake the credentials.
Click to expand...

TLDR demo want free monies for 3rd world country, and he want physical ballot box for virtual currency... :)
 
TroyDASH said:
Wait, so do you think the number of coins being created needs to permanently be the same over time towards an unlimited maximum, or decrease over time towards a maximum? You do realize that even if we allocated, say, 3% of the budget for a system such as this, the entire budget size itself will decrease over time because the block rewards will be smaller. Even if the percentage remains constant, the total number of coins being distributed would get less and less, and even smaller amount per person as more people enter the network.

3% of the budget right now is 203 DASH per month, and suppose there are only 1000 individual DASH users in the entire network, and suppose we (somehow) implemented a way to actually securely verify that everyone is actually unique and did not register multiple times. It works out to 0.2 DASH per user per month, which only gets smaller with more users signing up for free. This seems to me like *way* more trouble than it is worth. DASH users can already use Node40 to get a piece of a masternode reward though the proof of stake, and we don't even need to think about proving "individuality"..
Click to expand...

I edit it , but you answer before my editing. So please consider also my last phrase , as an answer to your questions.

demo said:
The distribution of coins may be the universal dividend, or the basic income, or maybe a faucet and any other random method. But in any case, the amount of coins to be distributed should be voted as a percentage, and should not be decided as a hardcoded percentage number.
Click to expand...
 
noobtrader said:
TLDR demo want free monies for 3rd world country, and he want physical ballot box for virtual currency... :)
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Those who want to reveal their state's digital credentials and associate them to a dash wallet, they dont need to use the assembly and the physical ballot box procedure. But in that case they will lose their anonymity on what it concerns the money they receive as universal dividend into their wallet (which it will be a wallet accosiated to their name). On the other hand revealing your state's digital credentials and associate them to a dash wallet, does not prevent for you to open another wallet, an anonymous one, transfer coins into it and thus preserve that way your anonymity in transactions.

Those who want to get the universal dividend, and they still dont want a dash wallet to be accosiated to their real name, they have also the alternative potentiality to gather once every 2 or 4 years, form an assembly , put a printed anonymous wallet (or public key) into a physical ballot box, and that way receive the universal dividend whithout their real name to be accosiated to a wallet . Of course they also have to present some kind of credentials in order to enter into the assembly. The names of the persons that participated in the assembly should be known, otherwise we have to accept the flaw that those persons could get more dividend , one eponymous and more than one anonymous (as many as the assemblies the person attended).This may not be a big flaw indeed, if all assemblies are concurrent and occur the same time. If all assemblies occur at the same time then the maximum dividend a person can receive is the double, one eponymous (earned without participating in any assembly by using their state's digital credentials) and only one anonymous (earned when participating in one concurrent assembly, and as long as it is impossible for someone to be physically present in two or more assemblies at the same time!).
 
Last edited:
Knowing the names of the participants in the assembly is not tottaly anonymous, but it is a strong degree of anonymity, as long as the physical ballot box prevents us to know what wallet-public_key corresponds to what name. It is the same degree of anonymity that occurs in the polling stations, where we know the persons who voted there, but we dont know what they voted, and this vote is considered as an anonymous one. Finnaly In the case of the concurrent assemblies, there is no need of any state's credentials in order to attend them and the anonymity may be considered as a total one, as long as the concurrent assemblies could also be masked ones so neither your face is revealed.
 
Last edited:
raganius said:
"The riskier the world becomes, the more potential there is for increases in inequality" lol what a joke.... "equality" is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Of course equality is a fallacy.
The fact that we are not equal eachother, the fact that you are a simple raganius and he is a nobel prize winner, how this fact can be used as an argument against basic income?
 
demo said:
the fact that you are a simple raganius and he is a nobel prize winner
Click to expand...
the fact that he is a nobel prize scammer means nothing in relation to his ideas being valid ideas... BTW, an argument from authority is not enough when logic applies ;)
 
raganius said:
the fact that he is a nobel prize scammer means nothing in relation to his ideas being valid ideas... BTW, an argument from authority is not enough when logic applies ;)
Click to expand...

And your argument against basic income is....?
 
demo said:
And your argument against basic income is....?
Click to expand...

That it is a blatant lie the assertion that it will "solve" inequality. Actually this solution to inequality is one more of the rainbow and unicorns lies used by the marxists to enslave us even more :rolleyes:
 
raganius said:
That it is a blatant lie the assertion that it will "solve" inequality. Actually this solution to inequality is one more of the rainbow and unicorns lies used by the marxists to enslave us even more :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nobody said that the basic income will solve inequality. Not me, not even the nobel prize winner. So your argument is based on a wrong assumption. Basic income may reduce wealth inequality, but inequality is not going to be solved. Even after the basic income is implemented, you still remain a simple raganius, I still remain myself, and he still remains a nobel prize winner. We are not equal eachother. Not even equal in wealth, because I am sure that even after a basic income is implemented, the nobel prize winner could still earn much more wealth than you and me.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Nobody said that the basic income will solve inequality. Not me, not even the nobel prize winner. So your argument is based on a wrong assumption. Basic income may reduce wealth inequality, but inequality is not going to be solved. Even after the basic income is implemented, you still remain a simple raganius, I still remain myself, and he still remains a nobel prize winner. We are not equal eachother. Not even equal in wealth, because I am sure that even after a basic income is implemented, the nobel prize winner could still earn much more wealth than you and me.
Click to expand...

23igvb7.jpg


:rolleyes:
 
raganius said:
23igvb7.jpg


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Cant you understand the difference between "reducing inequality in wealth" and "solving inequality"?
The basic income is about to reduce inequality in wealth, not solving inequality in general.

And what is your problem with government intervention? Do you think that government should not intervene? If government do not intervenes, then how wealth is defined? Do you know that everything named as "wealth", is defined by your government?

For example, your land, your money, and everything else you own, you own it because your government protects it. Because your government chases the people who are willing to steal it from you. You are highly dependant on government intervention, and all your wealth exists because of your govenment's existance and intervention.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top