Quote from: taltamir on February 20, 2013, 08:39:45 PM

Quote from: ronenfe on February 20, 2013, 08:28:46 PM

Quote from: taltamir on February 20, 2013, 07:17:43 PM

Quote from: ronenfe on February 20, 2013, 05:34:31 PM

Ok, I want to ask a question, suppose you and 99 other men are living in a different planet, until now you trade things.
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?

Now suppose that the coins you decided to use had to be manufactured in an expensive process to prevent counterfeiting. When this became known 95 of the 100 people involved decided to not bother. As time passed more and more of them joined in and worked hard to create more and more coins.
Now some guy in the 20 who never bothered working for it decides it would be more fair if he gets a cut out of the work everyone else did "just because".

First of all, I have never said people should give their coins after they had them, I said that originally it should be equal share.
This is not the case here, the work is invented in purpose and could be avoided. In any case lets say that only 5 people willing to participate.the 1000 coins should be distributed between the 5 people that wanted to participate, each gets 200 coins. How will they decide the value of each coin? I think they will have to experiment with it until it's stabilized. later comes another one that wants to join, they can create him another 200 coins.

This fundamentally cannot ever be bitcoin, bitcoin is not designed that way.

However I had myself envisioned this is the ideal fiat currency for a government to issue (tied up legally so the ratio cannot be changed without 95% of eligble voters voting yes on it... not 95% of people who make it to the polls... so you first have to convince everyone to go out and vote... the 2012 US election had slightly under 50% turnout amongst eligible voters according to my math from data taken from census).
That is, new currency is created OR destroyed by the government until total currency matches 1000$/citizen alive. If population expands government supplements taxes with printing. If population contracts government must spend some of tax money to destroy money. With a build in 10% a year change cap.
The unanimous requirement for change will protect it from moronic temporary politicians who don't understand you can't muck about with currency with impunity.

And I don't think this can ever be an alternative currency. You need to know exactly how many people are involved and if the issuing body isn't the government then who gets the new coins? every wallet? if that was the case then many people will create a million wallets for the free money.

Your idea sounds interesting, I'm not against a centralize authority, and I came to realize that with bitcoins it can't be accomplished. I say I think it's the right and logical system, and such system is possible and simple.

Quote from: lassdas on February 20, 2013, 08:53:51 PM

Quote from: ronenfe on February 20, 2013, 08:28:46 PM

the work is invented in purpose and could be avoided.

No, no and again no!

You still don't understand Bitcoin.

The work can NOT be avoided!
Even in the far future, when all <21million BTC are created the work still needs to be done!

Did you even read anything posted on the last 6pages? I guess not.

I meant that the work is needed because that's the way they decided the coins can be achieved. They could also decide to create all the coins in less time, maybe using different algorithm, couldn't they? But again It's true I don't understand completely how this work this way and why.