Quote from: smooth on June 12, 2014, 12:23:22 AM

Quote from: hbadger on June 11, 2014, 11:53:23 PM

Quote from: aminorex on June 10, 2014, 10:26:17 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 10, 2014, 08:26:36 PM

I don't really see how moving coins to yourself is good for the economy. In fact it seems like a waste of resources, though the benefit of certainly over lost coins might be worth it.

It's not. But keeping coins moving is. Any waste of resources in this instance is negligible. But I am more likely to spend coins if I am consciously aware of them as a resource, as would be required in order to move them. The good for the economy part is emission which compensates for lost coins. They will have higher velocity than average.

Inflation is not an incentive to spend unless you are forced into using only that currency, like governments do to their own people.

Do you have plans on forcing everyone to use Monero? Because if you don't, this will fail. I love everything about this coin, except for the inflation. And I talked to many bitcoiners and they independently arrived to the same opinion.

One of the main uses for Bitcoin that a lot of people like, is as a store of value. It rewards saving, like gold, as opposed to what fiat does, which punishes saving and responsible spending.

This also has ethical implications, like supporting or not consumerism and its ecological impact. Why do you want to force people into buying things they don't need? The economy can't grow undefinitely, sometimes it has to shrink for the benefit of the world and all of us. If someone is selling a product that people don't need anymore, what's wrong with him moving into something else? Why not "force" him into building things we need (if anything at all), instead of forcing us into buying them anyway? Inflation goes against the free market in that sense.

Also, if you want the price to go up, there's nothing better than having people use it as a store of value. Being able to use the currency (utility) also drives the price up, though not immediately (but the good news can have a fast effect). Forcing people into spending it won't. And it will certainly not attract new savers.

I consider virtually all macroeconomics to be junk science) but from a practical one.

I agree. I'm not saying "This is true because my teacher said so". I only had one class of economics at school and it sucked, it was all dogma. I'm just using observation and logic. Everyone is free to tell me "your observation/reasoning is wrong because X".

Quote from: smooth on June 12, 2014, 12:23:22 AM

I want to continue to pay miners without relying on transaction fees, because the latter forces consolidation, and worse, to give miners the market power to charge more than marginal cost.

If you don't have inflation (or demurrage, which I consider equivalent) how are you going to pay miners?

You are going to have to pay them one way or another. I only see two ways: inflation or transaction fees. The former would be paid by everyone (inflation is not free money), the latter only by those who need to transact. I don't know why you believe it's right to make everyone pay for a service they are not using. That sounds a lot like a government. What's wrong with letting people pay for the services they use? Nothing good can come out from letting people (in this case the senders) spend money that isn't theirs. Let's imagine an extreme scenario: A currency with zero fees. People would generate a ton of transactions they don't need at all, just because it's free. It would also attract trolls and spammers, and other scourges. That can't happen if it is their own money they are spending.

Ok, you say it forces consolidation. That doesn't seem intuitive at all. Do you have any evidence for it? All PoW coins seem to favor consolidation. I don't think it has anything to do with the relation between fees and inflation. Can you elaborate on this?