Quote from: testbitcoiner on March 19, 2014, 09:43:50 PM

Quote from: cryptozark on March 19, 2014, 08:53:52 PM

However, many more experience people chimed in and pointed out the other problems that other coins had with Proof of Stake. It encourages hoarding instead of spending as a currency. It causes inflation. People have pointed us to coins like Tagcoin that used Proof of stake and became wrought with technical problems regarding high orphan rates to the point that merchants no longer wanted to accept them.

As for the rest. YES, we want innovation. YES we are open to ideas.

Stop complaining and start helping! PM me for details.

it speaks volumes that you completely ignore the POS coins I continue to name as a good example, pick TAG because some guy in the thread says he knows they had problems, and then TAG is still doing so much better than EAC is doing.

Tag has 4 times the market cap and actually some price not in the one digit satoshi range.
TAG is on 41 in market cap. eac on 68.
BC , pure POS is on 18
peercoin, a success story if there ever was one last year, is at 3.

why do the devs not reply to these arguments, but rather cherry pick some claim by some guy who has been a nonstop all day fanboy of EAC?
cause that guy is a sock puppet of the devs. he blurts out what they think, so zark can "reply", quote him as a "more knowledgable guy" and dismiss the actal examples.

that is called "creating a straw man argument". they have no response to all the successful POS coins, so they choose one example that seems bad enough to support their argument.

yet even that straw man is doing 4 times as well as eac.
---------------------

1) it causes inflation.
nope it doesn't. it STOPS INFLATION.
hours ago I explained why. zark seems unable to eithe comprehend or respond to my explanation.
why is peercoin a shining example of success if "it causes inflation"?

2) it encourages hording.
nope, it does not. again, I have repeatedly explained why. it encourages NOT IMMEDIATELY SELLING IT OR PARKING IT ON AN EXCHANGE.
unless you EMPTY your wallet for every purchase, all your money you have left still collects interest.
and it is let's say 25% a year. who'd be discouraged from buying something with eac cause he could lose a few satoshi interest?
such errors of reasoning are just staggering.

3) none of my arguments is even acknowledged.
POS is bad. that's the extent of your reasoning. "many more experienced people" when it is just one guy telling an anecdote.

the problem eac has is not that people aren't spending it. the problem is that they rather sell it immediately cause they know it is not worth holding.
you use keynsian economics and the idiotic fallacy of spending is the savior for everything and saving is the devil. Hayek is turning in his grave right now and Keyns is having a cocktail party with the devil in your honor.

what you are saying is "I treat EAC like fiat, and make people SPEND IT by forcing inflation on them via a steep increase in currency supply.
BUT IN THIS MODEL SPENDING MEANS SELLING EAC FOR BTC, YOU POOR FOOL.

spending is spending. your economic model does not force people on merchants. it forces them on cryptsy

this creates a vicious cycle that you cannot break with using the same "all is fine! go to your homes! nothing to see here" message.
it worked in January when people still believed EAC had been actively developed. but it is not.

and for the love of god, stop saying things like "the team" and "discussed". if you'd up for discussions you'd have actual arguments and not straw men.

if you are not able to understand how POS works, and every post you and your sock puppets do proves you don't, then you should not dev for a freaking cryptocurrency.

Jesus Christ. peercoin is such a success and you are seriously claiming POS would not work for eac???

Ok, you've given a cogent, if heated, argument. You have yet to make one reason why ADDING A SECOND AND INCREASING level of inflation (yes, it is. Yes, I understand economics better than most. Yes, Keynes was an idiot at everything but gathering unwarranted power.) will increase adoption, but targeting merchants, attempting to get real world exchanges and stores, selling silver, and advertising WON'T.

First, let me dispense with YOUR fallacy. Proof of Stake is INHERENTLY inflationary. It adds coins as a secondary means to mining, which is in fact adding to the increase in the supply. Unlike mining, it expends no energy, no effort, and has no return OTHER than increasing a wallet.

Let me break it down a bit more. Inflation is not simply price increase, as idiots like Bernanke would have you believe. Inflation has ONE cause: Increase of the money supply. Bitcoin, and it's successors such as this one, are modeled on the real world paradigm of gold mining. Initially the supply is high, and decreases with time to a definite limit. There will come a time when there is no profitable way to mine gold on earth. It ain't there yet, but it will be. There will come a time when there are no more earthcoins to be mined. It's early in the game, and there is an oversupply currently. That can and should be addressed. We are discussing it. The idea has been bandied about several times on this thread and in other places of cutting the block reward sooner than the scheduled halving. I am in favor of this, as it chokes the supply and immediately causes the coins to become more scarce. Makes them less attractive to multipools as well, probably. Not sure on that, because their model is a bit odd to begin with.

Proof of Stake does not do this. Proof of Stake does encourage parking the coins, which does not put them in circulation but STILL increases the supply. Not only that, it does it indefinitely, which breaks the scarcity beyond repair. I want earthcoin to still be a viable currency down the line, not simply right this second. I cannot see how adding an inflationary component will do anything in the long term other than harm the coin. In the short term, yes, it gives it a shot in the arm. And much like the heroin addict, it will take more and more until it's ineffective and the addict is burnt out or dead.

Now, do you think you can tell me where and why I might be wrong without cussing my lineage, intellect, or understanding of economics? You can lambast my coding skills all you want. They are essentially nonexistent, and not my function on the team. But when it comes to economics, I was studying the Austrian school before Bitcoin was a concept, let alone earthcoin.

I can tell you that at this moment, all but two of the team are adamantly opposed to POS, but not to several other innovations, including cutting the block reward earlier or in a more graduated way. But all of us see mercantile adoption as crucial, regardless of technical tweaks.