= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stefan_Schubert comments on Private currency to generate funds for effective altruism - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
Exactly! Nice to hear that you have had similar ideas. I was disappointed to see this post downvoted.
The big question is how to get people to start to use it but I don't think it would be impossible. A charity with a good name could possibly do it. Perhaps the Gates foundation or others could be persuaded into supporting it.
People did end up buying dogecoin, after all. Was dogecoin what started you thinking about it?
And as far as trust goes, one could have a network imposed limit on the coin creation rate, the coin creation requiring a secret key which can be revoked and replaced when stolen. The absolute worst case where all the money get misused is still not as bad as burning electricity. I say we should start a website about the idea and approach, say, GiveWell.
No, I wasn't aware of dogecoin, am reading about it now. How is it different from Bitcoins? Specifically, who benefits from the money-creation process? Is there any waste?
Regarding trust: yes, that's one idea. The only problem is that one might want to adjust the coin creation rate in accordance with the increase in use of the currency. Otherwise, the value of the currency might increase rapidly (if the currency became more frequently used), which won't help the poor but rather the existing owners of the currency.
See also Gunnar's interesting ideas about using the legal system to regulate the money creation process. That would, as I write, go some way towards solving the trust issue.
An alternative idea is to try to bind the currency to the dollar, or that it's "central bank"/regulators tried to keep it as close as possible to the dollar. To implement these policies, the central bank would have to mint new money at the same pace that the usage of the money is increased.
I'm all for the website idea!
Dogecoin is just a bitcoin clone, not any better than original except it has a cute dog as a logo, and is basically just a joke. AFAIK, it's currently world's third by capitalization.
I think that some expected deflation may be necessary to get people to use it initially. And if value increases rapidly, that makes it profitable to donate. No doubt a lot of it will end up making some of existing owners virtually rich, but the goal here is not to avoid that, but to direct some percentage towards the poor. edit: and note that the poor are helped irrespective of whenever the whole thing is a bubble or not.
I messaged you in private, would be easier to continue discussion by email.
No, burning electricity is just "wasting" a resource. Someone stupidly (or maliciously) misusing money can do a lot more damage.
The guy who's wasting electricity also gets money that they then can (and will) misuse.