Quote from: blogospheroid on April 26, 2013, 07:08:34 AM

The thing that is being curbed is nominal transaction fees.

By reducing the velocity of money--a drastic measure. Are you familiar with the MV=PQ equation? Either P (price level) or Q (goods and services available to the economy) could be increasing that results in an increased V (velocity of money) assuming that the M (money supply) is unchanged. You are worried only about P and do not see that Q has an identical effect from the standpoint of transaction fees. Designing a system with some linear idea of how the economy is likely to expand is destined to be wrong. It is not a predictable process by any measure. Adjusting V will not make P stable.

Quote

Without a trusted Oracle, we have to rely on within-network indicators. Nominal transaction fees is a within-network indicator, that is relatively secure.

It may be secure, but for any argument you can make that it is useful I can come up with a counter-argument.

Quote

And sorry, I believe the direction of the feedback you describe is not correct.

Then what do you think will happen when people are cut off from trying to spend their money?

Quote

If there are more fees being spent and the system encourages it with printing more money, then even more fees will be spent and even more money will be printed until the coin collapses due to hyperinflation.

See the thing is, more fees being paid do not necessarily encourage the system to print more money, at least if we're talking about Decrits. Fees, on their own, have absolutely nothing to do with it. Only the willingness for a large group of people to invest time, hardware, and energy into minting new currency. For that to happen, Decrits must be worth more than their cost to produce. Even if a massively irrational actor decides to inflate the currency, all he has done has turned his effort into coins for other people. He cannot continue this behavior forever.

Quote

There needs to be a written down growth path for some indicator.

If you want instability, sure.

Quote

For bitcoin, it is the monetary base itself.

Case-in-point.

Quote

I'm discussing the possibility of using the nominal transaction fees as an indicator.

Even spam protection throws this off. I would imagine you'd need a minimum transaction fee, Decrits proposes 0.01, so that microtransactions do not tax the network. If microtransactions are popular, this would throw off your indicator by several times as it would see much higher fees than actual activity. "Too many microtransactions this week--LOCK ALL THE COINS!" You could argue to use actual amounts instead, but then you run into the significant problem of off-chain transactions/clearinghouses being left out of your indicator (which is also the case with tx fees).

Quote

The way I look at it, there is a component of proof-of-work/mordor coin that has to be incorporated into every coin.

It sounds like you think that Decrits doesn't have a proof-of-work component. It does. Maybe you're generalizing. But the whole hyperinflation thing seemed to be directed at it.

Quote

The question seems to be how to minimise it and still maintain stability.

I haven't seen you propose any way to minimize it, only how to hamfist a stable price based on incomplete information. What is your plan for this part of the equation? I've twice quoted how Decrits addresses this in this thread. I understand you're still developing your idea and I apologize for being harsh, but all of the concerns you state about what I've proposed are not really concerns and are things I have thought about and designed with in mind. You're using the same, weak arguments that everyone else does after getting an idea of what it is that is incorrect and not even bothering to quote the salient response points. I'd much prefer to argue my actual ideas rather than ones that look poor compared to yours; otherwise we go around in unproductive circles.