[Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox and Bitcoin (and the petition)

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 12 November 2012 13:43, Natanael Arndt <arndtn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 12.11.2012 13:29, schrieb Eugen Leitl:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Natanael Arndt wrote:
> >
> >> I don't say it is impossible to run a BitCoin client on a FreedomBox but
> >> I say the systembehind is not good, because it rewards people for
> >> burning electricity to get the virtual currency, that's not better than
> > At the current difficulty only FPGA and ASIC based systems might
> > or might not be able to mint cost-effectively. You will not be
> > able to mint with an embedded client. You don't need to be able
> > to mint in order to use a currency. It is easy to buy BitCoin
> > for fiat currency, and it is sufficiently frangible to provide
> > sufficient liquidity even with very few coins. Transactions
> > fees are completely optional.
> >
> >> mining gold by using bad chemicals to extract the gold.
> > You're welcome to build an alternative system which doesn't
> > have BitCoin's problems, and that people will adopt. It is
> > a much harder problem than most people realize.
> >
> >>> You're trying to reinvent a square wheel. Just use BTC.
> >> I think a project like FreedomBox should better motivate people to help
> >> each other by sharing resources rather than supporting a system where
> >> people are increasing there computing power to be the one who gets the
> $.
> > You're not well-informed about practical realities BitCoin in late 2012.
> > The minting ship has sailed a long time ago.
> >
> >> An why is this weal square and which one is round?
> >>>> By the whay: that is,what I first thought BitCoin would be when I
> heard
> >>>> of it ;-)
> >>> If you're trying to maximize the utility of FBX, you need
> >>> to put on it what people are actually using. Not what you
> >>> think they *should* be using, and what doesn't even exist
> >>> yet.
> >> Are people using BitCoins? Are people using pear to pear communication?
> > Of course people are using BitCoin (e.g. a friend paid
> > me with BTC for a beer, transaction was instant on 3G from
> > a mobile phone to a Nexus 7, tethered via 3G).
> > BitCoin happens to be P2P.
> >
> >> We are trying to make something new and better!
> > A laudable notion, but where is your system? And what are the
> > incentives for people who already use BTC transactions to also
> > adopt your system? You will need some significant advantages
> > to overcome the network effect, which will only get stronger
> > over time.
>
> I don't say I have a system in place but I think a system where you get
> e.g. 1 FreedomCoin for letting somebody use 1 GB of your storage for 1
> hour of for letting somebody use your CPU for some amount of time would
> reward people for helping others to do useful work. And then you could
> use your FCs to use computing power when you need it or go to the bakery
> and buy some bread while the baker can pay his web-page hosting with
> those FCs.
>

Applying currency in the wrong social situation is very problematic.

For example if you were invited to a dinner party and left $10 on the table
that would be considered crass.

Rewards should be by default for the commons for people helping each other
out and gaining good karma for it.  But *in certain situations* under
mutual agreement, it may be possible to negotiate pay for service
(reciprocity), but that should never be the default.

Getting the social protocols right, in a project like fbx, is more
important than devising the technological ones.  That said, there's no
reason why a vibrant economy cannot exist that benefits everyone.

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU


>
> Nate
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20121112/01c6017a/attachment.html>