Fantastic!
If that is possible and becomes reality it will be the best thing to happen in crypto in 2016.
Permanence is good.
Temporariness is evil.

Federal Reserve+income tax were born as temporary solution (noone would ever be able to justify  making such a monster permanent) and everybody witnessed evil at work through whole 20th century before and after it became permanent. Funny that it became permanent with justification that everything is good right before crash of 1929. It would have trouble extending it's powers after 1929 and the monster knew that and acted promptly and successfully.
That evil neutralized great permanent achievements of 1776.

I am quite sure Kennedy was killed by the same monster. With its permanent power it became much easier for evil to keep the status quo by killing presidents and other key people who try to shake it.

It's time to put evil back into its bottle for good.

James please make sure that bottle is closed tightly so that it's not as easy to open as it was in 1913 for that moron Woodrow Wilson and his buddies.
Specifically, don't make the same mistake as the Founding Fathers did by making it too flexible.

I love you James.

They cannot take away my bitcoin, but they can sell their huge stake and take away value of my bitcoins.
And, obviously, I care only about value of my wallet, I don't care about number of bitcoins in my wallet.

I agree that there is no fair distribution, but disagree that there is no equal distribution.
All it takes is to collect passports data and give each person equal share.
I am not suggesting that this is needed, I just state my disagreement.

Yes, avoiding the opposite is my goal.
When I say wide, I don't mean 100% equal and also I don't mean fair.
Wide means that majority of small holders hold 90% and minority of big holders hold 10%.
Each small holder should not have more than 0.00001% of coins. If any holder has more than that, he is considered major holder and counted towards 10% cap.

Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.

Big holders from minority will work hard and invest into coin development.
Passive majority will sit idle, but serve as guarantor of distributed ownership preventing pumps by taking profit selling during pump attempts and buying during dump attempts.

The problem with current coins is that there is no proof of wide distribution.
Many accounts could be owned by one person just to fake wide distribution.
Which is why I suggest to conduct crypto census after convincing everybody to participate because that proof will be valuable and give incredible boost from new investors. Those coins who cannot prove will be left behind.

Of course, if those 10% rich devs or investors abandon the project then coin will die, which is why census can bring value only to long standing coins with good history of development like BTC, NXT, etc.

No, bitcoin network is not strongest as of today.
 It had many failures and technical weaknesses that allowed Mt Gox to exist longer than desirable.
Recent weeks advice to not send bitcoin for several days shows that the network is still weak.
When was the last time VISA advised to avoid using credit cards for several days ?


Just because it has respectable status of father does not make it right to hide it's weaknesses from new investors.
Do I admire Satoshi's invention - yes, very much. If I was asked to donate him some coins as charity - sure I would. But investment and charity are 2 different things.
Do I think we should keep advertising bad tech for investments - no.
Do I think we should keep advertising it for charity and historical value - yes.
May be BTC should be considered rare collectors coin. But no one uses collectors coins for everyday business.

So if someone issues fixed number of physical coins that are very hard to fake and sells them for 1000 BTC each only to long term dormant BTC account holders that would make a lot of sense. It will remove risk of dump and will give collectors their rare coins that preserve value through rarity and historical significance. They can keep sitting on them till death, but they will no longer represent risk for new BTC investors because it will be impossible to dump BTC price by selling these rarities.

Once these flaws in BTC are fixed, I will change my opinion.
But what if it's impossible to fix them ?
What if BTC devs are on govt payroll to keep flaws for as long as possible ?
What if major miners will not accept these changes ?
What if miners are on govt payroll ?
It's not done until it's done.

I am on this forum because it serves as forum for all crypto.
Bitcoin became word that represents all crypto and I try to show people important difference between specifically BTC and crypto coins in general.

Even if it was bitcoin only forum, why must I leave if I have unfavorable for BTC opinion that I can logically prove ?

Is the purpose of this forum to maintain artificial peg BTC = good coin by suppressing negative opinions ?

 UN is good acronym for this because United Nations will become obsolete and spare UN acronym for better use.
United Nations is not accurate name for that organization. Better name is United Governments or United Powers especially that most governments no longer represent Nations.

Word Nation is both discriminatory and obsolete because it's quite hard to determine nationality of a child from 2 different nationals, speaking fluently 2 languages, citizen of 3 countries, lived equal % of life in 4 countries, does not have any plans to stay in one chosen country and has properties and ties with 5 countries.

Same as words race and ethnicity.
If someone needs good identification for security purposes they can use HTML style color closest to skin color of that individual in no-tan condition. They can even put it into passport and treat those with skin color darker than #3A3A3A or lighter than #F7F7F7 as protected minority for EOE employment purposes.

Idea: establish constitution of the United Networks - set of rules that everybody agree (cannot constructively object in efficient debate), easy to follow, easy to judge and do not have to be as flexible as the constitution of the United States to prevent uneducated/manipulated majority of voters from changing it.

These rules would start with debate rules similar to those that I posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1134936.msg12019751#msg12019751

Once debate rules are established, others can be debated and established.

Then software solutions can be developed to support and enforce these rules.

About ramifications:
1. I disagree. The value of crypto coins can be more, but people can still buy it for the same low price from issuer or distributor. They will buy like crazy, knowing that value of what they buy is more. They will even borrow fiat to buy more of it. They will stop buying when they got nothing to pay with. When people buy like crazy distribution becomes wide. Example - when people bought cheap gold for dollars before gold standard peg ended, gold achieved wide distribution, so wide that govts had to confiscate it and start world war 2 to reclaim monopoly on gold.

2. Yes, issuer can and will promise. After all, we trust big holders of NXT and BTC to not dump it on us, which serves as promise to be able to redeem at reasonable price from somebody on the market.

3. To solve it we would have to trust issuer to adjust sell order price accordingly. Or we can just assume that assets that we accept in exchange for coins have stable value. We could accept very broad ETFs or stocks of big and stable companies. But that problem exists only if coin value is less than redeemable asset. Once coin takes off and it's value greatly exceeds value of redeemable asset, this problem will not exist. People will not redeem at loss, unless they urgently need that asset.
Once issuer sell order is completely purchased, people will be able to sell at higher prices. Until then they are locked in their investment even if it has super high ROI.
Long term locking will also help to deter borrowing making sure people invest only what they own - their savings.
That will help to prevent premature exhaustion of issuer sell order and subsequent bubbles and contractions.

But if we accept PoHW (proof of human work) in exchange for tokens then problem of trust to issuer does not exist because there is nothing valuable to redeem. Image recognition can be successfully used as PoHW.

We could also give 2 options - to buy with fiat or give PoHW.
Those from poor countries will get coins with PoHW. Those from rich would buy with fiat.
In this case only those who paid in fiat will be able to redeem. Or we will not provide redemption option at all and spend collected fiat on development and marketing.
Amount of fiat should be comparable to average labor cost on the planet to get a coin with PoHW.

We could also give people opportunity to pick middle ground multiplying fiat amount by PoHW amount so that lower income people would choose to work more, but spend less fiat, and higher income people would choose to spend more fiat and work less.

I already consider NXT and Ether narrowly distributed. One indication is limited time of IPO distribution. Ether can still fix it because not all coins are distributed yet. NXT can fix it too if big holders make that choice.

I suggested to keep distributing at IPO price for long term, what is wrong with my suggestion ?
I did not suggest to give it to people for free.

Probably. But that is off topic. Replacing objective debate with personal attacks is a sign of weakness. I also consider it abuse of communication for the purpose of winning debate. Please don't abuse communication to win your point.

There are rules that don't need to be broken in any debate and those who break them only show weakness of their point of view and reduce efficiency of a debate.

One rule is do not change subject unless it helps you to objectively prove your point.
Second rule - do not put words into somebody's mouth. Don't assume, just ask.
Third rule - do not debate about intentions, debate about facts.
Fourth rule - do not joke without explicitly indicating that this was a joke. Joking can be used to conveniently back off wrong opinion without losing credibility, not that credibility matters much in objective conversation anyway, but it adds noise and waste of time.
Fifth rule - do not ask questions before getting answers on previous questions assuming how those answers will look like.
Sixth rule - do not interpret timing of response as part of an answer. Don't interpret silence as agreement or lack of knowledge.
Seventh rule - do not lie. Everybody can be objective about a subject even if their stakes are being hurt by discussion. It is not true that people have opinions based on their stakes. If discussion hurts your investments, just don't participate and if you do then don't abuse and don't lie.

No, those shares don't pretend to be decentralized business, so they don't have to be distributed fairly to be useful.
They don't pretend to become medium of value exchange and don't have goal of price stability (though funny thing that they are more stable than majority of crypto).

But considering that they are based on income from useful services, they would be best candidates for crypto if distributed widely and fairly as a token redeemable for their services. Currently Google does not offer any service in exchange for it's stock. But if this stock is to become currency - it must do that. It's like with trading oil through dollars. Why not skip conversion into dollar and pay for appengine, ads, gmail with Google tokens ? Why not pay Microsoft with msft tokens ? Why people are not allowed to prepay for future services from these companies but only allowed to speculate with their stock ? The answer is - taxation that requires everything to be valued in fiat disallowing barter of service in exchange for tokens.

How do I know if maxcoin will not significantly drop in price ?
What kind of tech does it have making it fundamentally successful ?

They were compensated mostly because they were not busy doing other things and were hanging out in forums. I was visionary too looking for mathematically enforced constitution of the United States that does not rely on people's votes, but I was too busy to look for opportunities. Do you think I would not invest few hundreds into BTC after I invested thousands into failing stocks ? I have no doubt I would. And I would now if there was one major crypto coin with good fundamentals.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin. It just happened to get traction because of SilkRoad and some other powerful groups.
It may have good technicals now, that makes it profitable short term, but it definitely has bad fundamentals that makes it deadend long term investment. No wonder bitcoin is currently one of Ryan's picks 😁 along with list of other shit coins.

I think it's best for everybody to take loss, abandon bitcoin ship selling on peaks, and move on to better avenues. Bitcoin hurts crypto scene big time. It's vulnerabilities scare people away from all cryptos considering that they hear that bitcoin is major representative of whole crypto environment. This shit coin should not represent us like major coin anymore. It discredited itself many times and it hurts crypto image.

"too late" is the problem, this is the source of unfairness. Why do they have to buy at price much higher than early investors ?
It does not have to be that way. There are many other places on earth where people can gamble if they want to. Why force them to gamble just to own some crypto ?

Bitcoin will never be big. When I read that it's best to not transfer bitcoin for several days due to some Chinese miners relying on other miners for hashing disrupting network operations without evil intent, I can only laugh. Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

It needs to have non-0 value. That value will derive from redemption or useful digital services.
No, I would not give it to people for free to dump. If they got it - they know the value and won't dump.
It will cost them something, nothing will be given for free. Giving for free is the source of all problems.
The only dumpers will be those who lost belief and sell at loss, which won't be significant to worry about.

Do you have any proof that "we can't" ?
It's convenient statement for early adopters, but is it true statement ? I doubt.
Prove it.

People give failing examples of distribution all the time (BTC, NEM, NXT, BTSX, AUR), but each one of them did not do the right thing, so those examples don't prove anything. There are millions of ways to fail, but we need one to succeed.

As for bitcoin distribution, even if it's currently the best (which I doubt), it's still not good enough and, unlike NXT, it cannot even get better due to weak algo. From my perspective bitcoin is dead and those merchants who bet on it investing into software that accepts bitcoin payments are fools. BTC rate may still fly for some time, but I would never keep my capital in it or do any development for it. I use it solely for quick conversion from fiat to NXT and ICOs.

If people buy token for 1 NXT they will not dump it much below 1 NXT, right ?

The goal is to not have big holders who are not interested in the future before token achieves wide distribution and adoption.
If we are talking about devs then tokens should be released to them gradually over time so that they will not be big holders before maturity of their work and success of wide distribution. After distribution is wide and token is adopted it is safe to give them big % because they won't be able to manipulate.

For distribution I don't mean only premine, I mean at any point in time. Distribution can be bad initially, but very good later. Again example is permanent sell order which distributes over time with very bad initial distribution.

This is how NXT distribution was supposed to work, but big holders got greedy and do not sell at constant price causing pumps and dumps. They are the ones who have power to achieve wide distribution and they are misusing their power for other goals.

Yes, it is possible to distribute fairly. One way is permanent sell order with constant fiat price (or oil or gold price if fiat becomes too volatile). That asset must be redeemable back to fiat that was invested into it. Just like gold standard, but with fiat being in place of gold.

Yes, getting lucky doing nothing is unfair, but, of course, very desirable by most people including me.
Limited time distribution is unfair too because it rewards only those who spent time on forums during specific time frame.

I don't believe NEM was fair at least because it was limited time distribution.
Can I get NEM same way as initial stakeholders after I know it is real and functioning and not scam ? The answer is no and this is why it's unfair. If I buy it, but someone got it for free, he can always sell cheaper than me, so here goes my risk and I don't want to gamble. I am interested in preservation of savings without risk - that is how fair distribution should work. People should have an option to just convert their savings into crypto hoping that it will preserve value just like gold after fiat crash or massive confiscation.

It is unfair to ask somebody to risk losing money in exchange for possible luck.
Distribution should not involve gambling. The goal of distribution is not to make few lucky rich. But, of course, devs who made it possible should become rich and well deserve such reward.

Why is time of distribution always have to be limited ? Why not keep distributing for the same price forever or at least until it becomes mainstream covering at least billion people ?

This is actually what Satoshi intended to achieve, but failed only because of too simple algo that prevented it to be wide and fair.

But I started this topic without word "fair". I started it with word "wide", which is different. Wide distribution solves problem of centralization. Fair distribution solves problem of malinvestment - giving money to less productive people.
Wide does not have to cover more than 1% of world population, but fair does.

Currently the only thing that prevents me from putting all my retirement savings into crypto is gambling risk. Remove it and you will see flood of money into crypto instead of useless gold, GLD, SLV, stocks, etc.

Like BCNext once wrote, this idea seems so simple and obvious, but for some reason noone implemented it yet.

Are there other platforms to consider for asset tokens other than NXT platform ?

I need a platform that is accessible from web browser (does not require wallet file), allows me to issue new tokens, has decentralized exchange, does not have present or future centralization or forking issues like BTC has (I recall one pool promising to not use their power for something bad 😀, when govt requires them, they will not have a choice to do something good, so their promise is not worth to trust anyway).

I think QORA, NODE, BTSX have something like assets, but not sure about web access and decentralized exchange.