Yes, of course you are free to choose your money system , but this money system is not free as long as there is someone who decides its inital values, regardless the will of the community that uses that money.
And yes, you may are precise with your own word definitions, but if your own word definitions dont match with the word definitions of the others, then in that case a communication (and as a consequence a community) is impossible to occur.
That’s exactly what you are doing, actually.
You insist to give us a different meaning for the word free that the one we’ve already chosen, so you are the one that just do not want to communicate with us.
So you can stay on your position of the word “free” (which is still a possible definition), but then do not complain about the fact it is not a “free” system to you: obviously it is not, because of the definitions you use.
But aren’t you able to switch of definitions? Again, when you look for a word in the dictionnary, you accept to switch of meaning because several meanings exist for a word. And you accept them because it is a dictionnary.
What if you accepted other meanings? Is it impossible for you?
Democracy does not exist an absolute entity either. There are only men who choose which reality to put under that word, but the new guys saying “this is not democracy” are no more legitimate than others to say what is democracy than what is not.
So everyone is always free, no matter which are the definitions you want to impose us.
Correct. This is exactly what I am doing. But it is not my goal to confuse you,and stop the communication with you…
I am introducing to your community (which is a small community, you have to admit that) a new meaning of the word “free”. A new for you meaning that it is actually an old meaning, and a meaning that I believe most of the people think, when they refer to that word.
Even if you dont agree with my meaning, if you are an open community you have to agree that this is also a definition of freedom.
And if you are a free community (which is identical to a democratic community in my definition) you have to let members of your community to decide what “free” is. And if the majorithy of your communtiy change opinion and thinks that my new definition of “freedom” is better than yours, then you must also change the label “free” for your money, as long as you still insist of defining its initial parameters without asking your community about them.
Yes I agree this is also a possible defintion.
Pfff, and what is the community decide I have to die? Will I have to? Seriously. 
No. I don’t have to do anything.
When it comes to conceptual worlds, you have two choices:
If you choose 1), then maybe you have a chance to understand what is said. But that still require an effort to understand the imbrication of the new concepts. This might take hours, days or even years (think about Einstein relativity for example).
If you choose 2), then you won’t understand anything, for sure. Because there will exist inconsistencies, that is, definitions that are not compliant between them. Here, you will be lost in infinite loop of non-understanding and rejections of definitions and conclusions.
You are currently in choice 2. You reject the new definitions and so you don’t understand why we agree to say “this is free currency”.
Note how this do not imply to accept 1) forever. You can do it for the time you study a particular case. You can get back to another definition thereafter.
If you really don’t agree with the “free money” term, then just say “free acccording to the definitions given by the RMT”, which does not mean this is the free as in your own definition.
We don’t force anyone here.
Edit: I hope that, with this comment, you understood that “majority” does not legitimate anything. You might be right, alone in a room of wrong guys. Majority won’t change this.
« Au pays des fous, ce sont les sains d’esprit qui paraissent fous. »
Anyway, It is a matter of definition, and I think this conversation about the “free” word does not lead anywhere.
So I return to the original subject of the thread, the model of your WoT.
Can I put somewhere a poll about it?
I would like to ask the members of your community, what they believe the correct initial values of the ucoin software should be.
I would like to ask this question not only to the trusted members, but also to the untrusted ones.
The purpose of the ucoin project is to make a tool to allow communities to create “free money” as defined in the RTM.
It is a clear objective. And that is what I like about it. The objective is well defined.
By the RTM definition, it is said that you must respect symmetry over time.
But you will break it as long as you will change the rules for future users.
No matter who decided, rules are changed, old users are not equals to new ones.
So IMHO your proposition is not suitable to achieve the goal of the project.
But there is more…
In the blockchain, there is immutable properties in block 0.
This ones are totally secure.
It ensure symmetry in time for all users.
So if you authorize some properties to be changed, as mutable properties, you are weaker in term of security.
Any attackers, bad organized democratic crypto feasts, or clever individuals can try to change them in anyway they can. And they will…
[quote=“demo, post:39, topic:764”]
I would like to ask the members of your community, what they believe the correct initial values of the ucoin software should be.[/quote]
There is not “our community”, because any “community” is a community(t) where future members(t+x) are not born. And so we don’t decide “initial values” for others, because our flow(t) = community(t+dt) - communidity(t), is not an imposition, but a choice for new members(t+dt) to analyse the rules, accept them and make proposition to join or not.
So in all those important points, bitcoin is ok, there is no obligation to join bitcoin for same reasons, and so bitcoin don’t impose us its own “community rules” (which are inferred by bitcoin money rules). The difference here, like vtexier explained it that free money rules are designed to be a symetry in space-time, and changing them will break the symmetry.
So no, there won’t be opportunity to change initial rules for one free money. But, like Inso explained too (you probably didn’t analyse his post), any members in the future will be able to fork as well the software, and fork the blockchain too. So what you call “a poll” will be possible thru fork. The difference here, is that this fork won’t be an obligation for those who agreed the rules and definitions initially to fork too, and there will be a separation between two “communities(t+dt)”, like a secession.
You do whatever you want, where you can, I don’t see any constraint here. Whatever will be the result, I won’t change the choices I decided to follow by myself, and with the people who defined it and/or accepted it too.
There is no interdiction and no impossibilities to do all the polls you want at the time you want, concerning the people who is interested in it.
IMHO you are breaking symmetry over time, by leting a single person to decide all initial values of your money, and by refusing to all next generations this right to decide about those values.
You change again the meaning of the word, you create an assymetry over time that way , and you name it symmetry.
You create a money of slavery, and you name it free. You create an assymetry over time, and you name it symmetry. I am wondering, what is happening here? Why you reverse the definitions of the words? Is all sense of logic lost?
Did you read my post ? 
Yes I read it Inso. It is the only reasonable answer. thank you.
It is not an answer, and we do not answer to your questions. We just say what we are doing. You can also create a forum, a blog, a project, where you will explain what you are doing, and people will ask you information of what you propose.
Where is your work then !? Just give us a link towards your work, and will be able to come and see, and ask you about what you want to do, and then we will be able to decide it is something interesting or not, join it or not. And so everybody stay free.
What is not a free way is supposing you need to change the mind of other people to do anything, instead of changing your own mind to do the things following your own needs.
No we don’t.
We make a libre software, so you are free to fork it and create the rules you want.
Don’t complain to others what you can already do by yourself.
Period.
Dont get me wrong.
I think you have just missed something, and because you missed it, this is a reason of failure.
I am here to present what you have missed, and try to convice you to follow it.
Dont blame me for what, you are doing the same thing, you are also trying to convince people to follow ucoin, dont you?
Absolutely not. We don’t want people to be convinced to follow anything. We just follow our own road. Some people join us because they want to follow the same, it is ok and we are happy to share it. But we don’t want to “convince” and it is ok that other people follow other roads.
So follow your own road, we don’t want to convince you about anything. Make your own work and be happy.
It is ok for other people to follow other roads, but if this is always the rule, then everyone has its own road, no glue exists, and community dissapears.
You are a small community, and you will remain one as long as you ignore the glue rule.
As long as you accept the glue rule, then lets discuss and find the right glue.
Well. I think creating a money where all initial values are created by a single person and are unchanged during time, this is not a glue strong enough.
It is ok, I don’t see any problem here.
It is ok and it is a possibility too. No problem here too…
People who want to develop “small” or “big” “communities” follow their own road, it is not a problem. It is absolutely not the point of what we are doing here.
Galuel you want to create a money community, and you want to remain a small community?
You dont want real money, you just want to play a game. In that case, why dont you play monopoly?
If your goal is to remain a small community of a few persons, then this is not a real money you create. Your actions do not make sense at all if you want to remain small…
Bitcoin people started with 1 individual, maybe 2 or 3.
How many are they now?
The purpose here is not to create a “small community” neither to create a “big community”, neither to “create a community”, neither to “not create a community”.
For instance too, the goal here is not to “create a cake” neither to “not create a a cake” neither both of them, neither the absence of “create or not create a cake”.
It is absolutely possible to create a cake here. But it is far away the goal. So perhaps you should study what we are doing first, and then you will choose what you want to do by yourself, join it, not to join it, developp other thing, or doing anything, or continuing to write things on a forum…
You stay free.
They are many, and this was their goal. So this should be your goal too, to become many.
This is the reasonable goal, when you create money. If you start from the beggining and you say “I dont care if we will never become many” then in that case 100% your money is a failure.
The bitcoin people find a glue, and this was the blockchain. But although they are now many, time will show if they will manage to survive. I think they have missed the concept of community, thats why bitcoin is going to fail.
Ucoin has the concept of community, and this concept is inside the universal divident. You are in a good road, a better road than bitcoin, but you also have missed some key elements, in my opinion.
Community is not enough, Democracy is also a key element for the coin of the future.