Quote from: Rotsor on November 19, 2012, 03:58:00 PM

But it is! If attack is successful, then it's equivalent to (transparent) inflation in every way except the position of decimal point.

What is "transparent inflation"?

The proposed mechanism wouldn't cause prices to rise. You're just sucking money out of one part of the system and re-allocating it to a different part. It's a tax that redistributes money, taking it from the market and putting it into the hands of banks. It doesn't cause prices to rise any more than income tax does.

But I don't think there'd be any justification for that. If you assume things like the distributed bond markets get implemented then individuals would probably invest money anyway when good opportunities presented themselves. The assumption behind forcibly re-allocating value to banks is that banks will lend whereas individuals wouldn't. The only plausible explanations for why that would be are asymmetry of opportunity (which can be rectified with better technology) or that the banks would make worse or riskier lending decisions than actually make sense. Hardly a great outcome.

Quote from: Mike Hearn on November 19, 2012, 03:46:19 PM

Fail. Do you know losing 3% twice is the same as losing 5.91% once?

My point was about the systems introduction. There has to be a point before this tax is applied and after it. If people learn about the tax before it is switched on, all the coins will end up with basically similar ages that won't change much and it amounts to a flat tax on savings. This is not demurrage nor inflation.

At any rate, I think this kind of argumentation is a poor use of time. It boils down to "if something external actor with great power forces the rules of the system to change, the rules of the system will change" which isn't a particularly interesting discussion. So what?