• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Arcurus last won the day on January 27

Arcurus had the most liked content!

About Arcurus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Planet Earth
  • Interests
    Common Good Economy

Recent Profile Visitors

2509 profile views
  1. Arcurus

    Changing the proof of work algorithm

    having an own mining alg sounds good, because in the long run if there are Freicoin specific asics, they would have an incentive to stay helpful to the coin. It could be even a good idea to have both algs running on the same time, therefore we should think about never fully abandon SHA256. Having it asics resistant is no need, i think its good to have ascis mining the coin, otherwise again lot of general purpose mining power can switch to mine the coin and also botnets can mine the coin.... To miner centralisation, i think a mining alg change will not solve that long. Centralization will always happen in the industry. If asics are easy to produce for the alg the hope is, that competition will always be big enough that no monopoly happens. If you ask me, to solve the centralization problem switching mining algs will never help, either you make it genera purpose, in this case the current companies like intel / asus / amd dominate, or you make it special, in this case asic manufactures dominate. A true solution to the mining centralization problem would be to implement Freimining, in short give subsidies to decentralized community driven miners and or Freicoin related hardware producers Or change to a combination of proof of work and proof of stake / proof of member / or something like stellar / ripple consensus this can also be implemented as a soft fork as maaku described above. By the way, if you switch the mining alg it would be good to switch also to a better difficulty alg. Some ideas to that: Why use a two way proof of work architecture? The main reason why to use a two way architecture is to not be dependent on one mining hardware provider. In case if needed one mining algorithm can be replaced more easily. Another reason is to allow more people to have access to new coins. One alg could for example be an alg that is easy to use with general purpose computers and therefore allow a wide access to new coins. The other alg could be easy for asics, so that special asics are created that have an interest in the health of the coin. Isn't a double spend more easy in a two way proof of work architecture? In the end transactions are secured through the economic value given as reward o the miners. A two way proof of work architecture doesn't change that. Proof of work in layer 1 is used to make sure that is is economically expensive to undo transactions. A layer 2 can make sure that transactions can be treated as good as irreversible once confirmed in layer two. Further by default blocks that are mined before the target blocktime is reached can be required to have a higher difficulty or be rejected by the network (see below) How can a simple difficulty algorithm look like? First of all it is good to clarify the two design goals a difficulty algorithm should fulfill. First it must make sure, that the difficulty adapts if the mining power increases or decreases. Second it must make sure that in the long run the blocks created per time period is ¨fixed¨. The first goal could be reached through this: - the difficulty is increased / decreased each block by up to 10% if the last 10 blocks have been in average faster / slower then target block time The second goal could be reached through this: - if 10 blocks more / less then the expected blocks are created the target block time is set to 0.8 / 1.2 the target blocktime. A third optional goal could be to make fast block creation more difficult: - a node only propagates a block if the difficulty is higher then: target difficulty * target block time / time since last block. At minimum a block must have still at least the target difficulty. With this a block that is double too fast would need double the difficulty to be propagated in the network. Four times to fast would need four times the difficulty.  This would also reduce the problem of mining centralization and therefore give an opportunity to reduce the block-time, because with the above alg miners would have in average more time to receive the new block. On top of that through making the required difficulty time based this would allow a much more stable blocktime even if using the same mining alg like other coins. In short No more incentives for drastic hash increase or decrease. For example, normally the difficulty does not change relative to the last blocktime. Therefore the difficulty is either that low that the coin is the most profitable to mine and therefore attracts the majority of the mining power or that high that the coin is not the most profitable coin to mine. This leads normally to sudden and drastical hash increase or decrease. A drastic decrease in hashpower is even more fatal, because this normally slows down the difficulty adoption. Economically no miner would have an economic incentive to mine such a coin to bring down the difficulty, which makes the coin dependent on good willing miners that make an economic lost. In case the above alg is used if the last blocktime is too low and therefore the difficulty too high, miners will mine simple another coin (or stop mining). With time if the last blocktime becomes higher, the difficulty will decrease and therefore the coin becomes lucrative to mine until the next block is found.
  2. Arcurus


    the plan was to have something like a decentralized foundation.
  3. Arcurus

    New release: v0.8.6.1-4 (soft-fork!)

    as said, it could look confusing what the newest version is, if someone oversees the -
  4. Arcurus

    New release: v0.8.6.1-4 (soft-fork!)

    yes i understand the numbering now, just for clarity i would suggest to write: “v0.8.6.0-2” instead of “v0.8.6-2” in this case v0.8.6.1-4 would not look lower if you oversee the - then “v0.8.6.0-2”
  5. Arcurus

    New release: v0.8.6.1-4 (soft-fork!)

    ah, in this case better name v0.8.6.0-2 by the way, do you plan to switch to the new bitcoin version?
  6. Arcurus

    Freicoin Mining Calculator

    nice. Maybe it would be good to list by default only outgoing foundation transactions.
  7. Arcurus

    New release: v0.8.6.1-4 (soft-fork!)

    Just one question, wasnt the old Freicoin client version 8.6.2 already?
  8. Arcurus


    Great! Much thx!
  9. Arcurus


    i wish too... still in the long run it would be good to bring also further properties into a freieconomy. Silvio Gesell vision was not just having a demurrage. There was also land property and so on.
  10. Arcurus


    yes, i agree, that in an system with price inflation people have to argue for higher salaries to get more or less the same while a stable currency or a demurrage based currency prices may stay more stable, therefore employees don't need to argue to get inflation increase of their salary. To the other part, lower wages must not lead necessarily to less productivity, or higher prices, most likely its the other way round, lower wages would lead to more employment, because less cost and lower prices, because less money too spend (not counting the money inflation itself). What an UBI would change is that more people would have access to money, therefore the money would not that much accumulate in certain regions / people, therefore salaries are expected to be more even in regions / city / land and globally (also it would even out between poor and rich communities). I think in the end the UBI should not be financed completely from the demurrage or money inflation, instead it should be financed from the rent on property (stocks) as described above (see former post). To the UBI itself, i dont know if it is good to give all the money out for nothing. I think we must make experiments what is the best way to give out the money. For sure people must have a guaranteed access to money, so that they can take part in the economy if they wish so. Different possibilities to distribute the money could be for example: 1. Direct without any conditions 2. Require to do certain work 3. Give as bonus for buying products (see freipay project) 4. give as bonus for certain investments / credits (see freiinvest project). Because its the easiest way i think its good to start with 1. and then slowly add / test other methods. To demurrage or inflation: Currently i think the best money system would be with neither demurrage or price inflation. Just take a stable currency as described in the post above. In the beginning if the economy of this currency grows there is to be expected lot of money which must be generated to guarantee price stability. Part of this money could be used to buy stocks / coins / property and then rent it out (for example on the blockchain itself). This rent is then used to guarantee that all people have a fair access to money. In case of price inflation, the rent could be used to buy back the currency and therefore stabilize the prices.
  11. Arcurus

    Draft - Freirepublic

    Hi Mark, thank you for your answer! Just for my understanding. what is the difference between self-organized byzantine fault tolerant consensus algorithms and for example stellars federated Byzantine agreement (FBA)? Another question is, is there a need to have a perfect system from the beginning, or could we start with something good enough to work, and later evolve it further if we have more resources? For me it looks like dashs, stellars and ripples consensus system is good enough working to distribute and transfer tons of money proofing with each day since years now.
  12. Arcurus


    Hi Rik, to inflation vs demurrage and the above article. What is currently happening / not happening in the system like wage increases cannot be compared to a system which distributes the newly generated money directly to the people. I'm not so much talking about basic income, im talking about fair access to money. Currently the newly generated fiat money accumulates with few people because it is generated by giving out loans and by directly buying stocks and properties. But simply giving out new loans does not increase the need for new products, because the money goes only to few, therefore does not increase product prices or product demand (except stocks and property prices), therefore does not increase salaries. It even reduces the product prices, because currently there is low interest on loans, therefore the cost of a product which comes from interest costs (currently around about 1/3), reduces, therefore we don't see much rising prices even with the money supply drastically increased. This is the current system, another system would be if the newly generated money goes directly to the people. In this case the purchasing power of the people will increase, therefore the prices will increase or more products will be asked for, therefore companies will be required to hire more people (except the automation is too much influencing already) therefore the wages will increase. This would be totally another system compared to the system described above. Yes in this system there will be an inflation in the long run, but if the interest is near the inflation plus a certain risk for not getting the credit back, then this system could function for eternity, because money would not accumulate that much (not considering other tendencies that lead to money accumulation like property / stock income, thats another story that must be solved in a fair system). The question is now, what is the benefit from a demurrage, vs inflation, vs fully price stable currency. Demurrage would in the long run keep the product prices more stable, while an inflation based currency will increase the name value of the products slowly according to the inflation. Therefore demurrage based money would be a slightly better unit of account, but this accounting effect could also be easily calculated in if you do accounting. Using paper money in an demurrage based system could be tricky. Another difference of demurrage money would be that salaries would not be by default inflated, therefore employees would not need to bargain to increase their wages each year to have the same after inflation. Inflation based money would once in a while have to get rid of some zeros, while demurrage based money could have the need to add some zeros if the production grows. I think the most fair system would be if the inflation is equal to the production / economy growth, in this case there would not be an price inflation at all. Newly generated money should go directly to the people so that they have fair access to money and directly as zero interest loans to small / medium enterprises, and to buy properties (see below). In case of an price increase the money from the loan payback could be used to reduce the money supply and therefore guarantee a stable money / unit of account with aimed 0% inflation or deflation. In this system, money itself would not accumulate through interest. Of course accumulation of money / property through stocks and properties must be still fixed to have a fair system. This could be implemented gradually through using newly generated money for buying up property and stocks. This property and stocks can then be rented out for X% with X guaranteeing that all people have fair access to property. All other taxes, except for environmental / guiding taxes like on chemicals, drugs, advertisements, harming products could be abolished step by step. The system itself would be self balancing, so no need for inheritance taxes or income taxes. Thats it, hope not too long
  13. Arcurus


    By the way Bick, we have allready a Manna forum since long time here, the name is just outdated (Manna was formerly Grantcoin)
  14. Arcurus


    i guess manna will reach this year already 100.000 people if they manage to scale up to the demand. Only thing i worry about is, that they have a similar problem like we have with with the Freicoin Foundation. Currently their Foundation holds a big part of the available manna (true market cap must be so 100 million already). Also the current manna wallets are on a centralized server. both could be hacked.... Of course with one exchange currently its easy to make the hack undone, but would destroy some trust...
  15. Arcurus


    Fedde said he wants to add Manna... I like manna very very much. Currently They are the leading basic income currency. I hope that Fedde will add Manna soon, i think Manna is very promising, except we finally manage to start our basic income project Manna currently has only one exchange, if we add Manna now we could make freiexchange to the most liquid manna exchange! All the good, Martin P.s.: Im in contact with some of them, and they seem to be very nice and welcoming! Disclaimer, im for sure invested currently in Manna