Quote from: theymos on January 16, 2018, 08:43:29 PM

I don't usually comment on these things, but I was looking into this one for forum ads, and I had some thoughts on the interest mechanic. It's potentially an interesting and fun idea, though I suspect that it will not be useful in any wider sense.

The interest pool concept is extremely similar to the bond auctions done by ~all fiat central banks constantly in order to affect interest and inflation rates. Generally you'd expect the issuance of bonds to promote deflation in the short-term while creating money (and therefore inflation) in the longer-term. But I think that these effects come mainly from changes in policy rather than the policy itself, and so I don't think that the fixed-total-coupon pools in BCI will have any effect on inflation/deflation beyond the obvious effect of the subsidy itself, especially since money does not actually get tied up in BCI pools.

Since BCI in pools is not really tied up, there's no reason whatsoever for people not to pool-deposit their BCI as much as possible. Combined with the fixed total-coupon supply, I'd expect very low interest rates which do not really reflect the time-value of money in any meaningful way.

I think it'd be far more interesting (though IMO still inferior to BTC) if:

- Money in pools was actually tied up. Then interest rates would legitimately reflect the time-value of money to some extent, and deflation might be encouraged.
- The amount of BCI created for the interest pools and pool duration was adjusted by a "central bank" (maybe actually a PoS vote or something) with the goal of maintaining somewhat steady prices, similar to fiat central banks. This would be especially interesting because mainstream economists would find such a system far more attractive than inflexibly-deflationary cryptocurrencies like BTC; it could be seen as a test of economic theories.

(Note: I see various other technical problems with BCI, I do not agree with ever naming an altcoin "Bitcoin _____", and I do not plan on buying any BCI.)

These are some very good points and interesting concepts. I hope the devs take time to read and respond to this. Also as to the name I don't think it matters. Bitcoin itself is a giant and this being a fork of that makes sense to keep some remnants of it. I'd like to think Satoshis original dream was not for just hit bitcoin to be the only bitcoin. I don't see any issue with the name, in the end its just a name, its what behind that name I think that matters.

As to having the money tied up, i kind of like that idea, though I guess payments would not go out every month? WHen would you expect to see payments like in a quarterly POS voting system or something? I guess I don't follow that part as much.

-Taylor.