Quote from: brush242 on February 24, 2014, 08:59:35 PM

What are you guys waiting for?

The point of this discussion is not to evaluate whether a "minimum income" altcoin is desirable, but rather how it could best be made functional. If you don't agree that it is desirable, I would ask that you consider creating a separate discussion thread to debate that.

There is a technical issue with implementing a minimum income scheme using TheCoin, which has a potential solution at the "strategic" level, but which needs to be examined at a more tactical level. Namely, how to prevent rampant use of multiple false identities for extra distributions.

The strategic level solution to that, which a few have agreed sounds right, is to require a pledge to do (very light) work validating identity of other claimants, as a condition of accepting a coin distribution (If you can think of a better approach, that would also be welcome. Do keep in mind that this is intended to work world-wide, without government intervention.)

The tactical element, of course, is "How would validation be done?" with particular focus on keeping down the complexity. And that's not a trivial problem. As soon as one proposes some obvious method of validating identity of claimants, one also exposes fairly obvious ways to cheat that method.

For example: suppose the validation method was to have a randomly assigned person who lives near a claimant, go visit the latter, check that that person lives under the claimed name at the claimed address, take a photo of the person. But if the latter is a crook, what if he offers the 'inspector' half of his weekly take under the false name? Now there are some obvious counter moves to that - say always having two random persons check on a claim, and penalizing someone who falsely makes multiple coins or deliberately validates a false identity. But THAT adds the complex question of how to determine whether someone merely made a mistake, or intentionally validated a false identity. And what if the validation agent who says the identity is false, happened to know and hate the person they were asked to validate? Take the thing to a conventional court? What if this is in a country with a poor legal system? Do we then add some sort of "coin court" with judges and juries and that whole mess? Sent three random validation agents and if 1 of them says the claim is false, send another three?

I hope that illustrates the sort of problems that still need to be solved. You are welcome to make creative suggestions for validating claimants. Or maybe a way to avoid that requirement altogether.

Note that even once workable methods are conceived, there would still be a technical implementation effort required.

I hope that answers your question.