It is kind of weird that once we made GRouPcoin and DeVCoin the constant complaints about bitcoin NOT constantly creating coins seems to have died out.
Maybe all the people who claimed that it is economically vital to keep creating coins forever were just bullshitting?
It would be useful to have them around to re-interate all their arguments, explaining that coins such as GRouPcoin and DeVCoin that keep creating coins forever are far superior to the intrinsically flawed "limited number ever" model exemplified by bitcoin...
-MarkM-
I agree Mark that a limited coin is flawed eseocially at 21 million. I don't disagree with printing more money but it should be less or using demurrage. Something to keep the billions from growing while the price is imploding.
I agree a lot with what luckybit says but I also think the way bitcoin, once a token, now a coins currency simply because its in demand, devcoin can too follow that route but it would take many adopters. And if what he says its true and we have hundreds and soon thousands of workers in third world countries then yes, it will destroy the plan cause most 1st world countries will not work for a small share that's only worth maybe $10, while over there that's a good wage but I doubt the content will the same quality there which is why I suggested more like a .25 share for third world countries to keep the businessplan from unraveling.
I also like his idea of devcoins not in use for an X amount of to auto destruct. That's brilliant as it limits the total numbers and it creates massive money volatility which would then put an upward pressure on the price as people will only hold on so long before selling the coins. Maybe a clause saying once sold the shares clock starts again but up to a limited amount of time to prevent abuse from clever guys with 10 different wallets.
Hello:
Here are my two cents.
I agree with having a debate about having unlimited, infinite or limited amount of coins, by the way none of those terms are equal, or exchangeable.
Personally, I am for a limited amount of coins created/destroyed every so often, lets say a year, of course this strategy is only for mature coins. This way you start the year with some amount, which you know is going to decrease by a percentage, and you have the whole year to create more. You will also have a whole year to decide wether to create less, to restore the amount lost with new coins or to increase it; a debate could be held to decide upon it.
I have to say I disagree with the idea of weighting quality of someones work through the amount asked for it or the region of the world it comes from. I have to remind the difference in quality of life is just evidence of the inequalities of the "global" society, which could and should be solved someway. One option might go through adopting an open currency which is socially maintained.