Quote from: alkan on April 23, 2017, 10:31:18 PM

Quote from: ttookk on April 20, 2017, 04:17:59 PM

Ok, please be aware that i'm just playing around here; thinking loudly. Tis is not to be taken too seriously and not aimed at a specific usecase now, but could evolve in that direction.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Quote from: ttookk on April 20, 2017, 04:17:59 PM

What if the token can also be seen as a negative thing? Holding a token would be an obligation, not an advantage. A possible scenario could be like this:

The tokens are auctioned off as described, but it's a negative auction: users pay fees not to get the token.

For every block or number of blocks, a token is sent to the account which paid the smallest fees.

I'm not sure if I understand your idea. In Proof of Membership, accounts act as the (second) token. So, how can they be sent to an account and penalize its owner?

(Sorry, I didn't have the time to fully grasp the details of your idea... I may come back later)

Yeah the idea wasn't well thought out. Penalizing an account would result in the user setting up a new one. Unless:

A newly created Account automatically has a "penalty" on it, possibly by requiring relatively high transaction fees. To lower the penalty, a user can either mine/stake blocks with the account, where the more blocks are mined, the lower the penalty gets, or pay a (pretty high) one time fee to lower the penalty.

Obviously, this system works best if the block rewards are extremely low, consisting only of penalties and fees.

Penalties should probably "grow back" over time. Additionally, it would make sense to have a system in place, which penalizes miners who only confirm transactions with high transaction fees, since being able to pay low transaction fees would be a reward, that should be protected.