A core feature of the uCoin base is that certifications are needed to be part of the community. Once one is part of a community, he begins to receive UD. The UD can be sent to other users of the currency.
Others will know better than me because I’m not involved in this development.
I think that the whole idea of WoT and membership is to prevent individuals to receive several universal dividends.
Therefore, people or entities outside the WoT do not earn the universal dividend (basic income). I do not think it is a problem that they can trade with people from within the network?
For instance one organisation can receive/send currency yet this entity does not earn an universal dividend as it is not “human”.
Similarly, I can create a second wallet for whatever reason and use it to trade currency. Yet this wallet will not earn an universal dividend either because I already earn one in my main wallet and I can only earn one universal dividend.
Did I get the reasons for this choice right? At least it makes sense to me
About the protocol: it says anyone can write a transaction with a UD in it, but it also says a transaction with a UD in it must be justified by the fact we must have been a member for the targetet UD.
Also, the technical protocol isn’t very helpful in its current format for people who want to learn about uCoin: it is just a set of rules without any explanation. It targets only developers once they understood the global frame beforehand.
Hi all! Just reading a lot of topics to try and understand things and their implications.
Isn’t this a bit dangerous? As long as “uCoin/Duniter” communities have to transfer “money” value with the rest of the world (that still uses banks and so on to create money), isn’t it a huge risk to offer the possibility of anyone creating one (or many) “enterprise/association/structure” to manipulate your local community money in order to jeopardize it? Unless the community is 100% autonomous (quite difficult in this globalizing world), this seems to me as a huge Achille’s heel, especially as free-money communities starts arising.
Let me give a simple example.
Imagine a super rich power that wants to create chaos to shatter or destroy a small target community using the free money BRZ. That power creates a non member entity E in that target community. E starts buying off as much BRZ as possible with dollars. BRZ is gaining a lot of value, little by little, and importing gets more and more expensive for that community. When things start stabilizing again, E sells all the money they’ve bought - thus creating a tsunami on your import/export and shattering your local economy.
Basically, if you compare with the disks in the TRM theory, they would create a huge hole of money in some external part of the disk (at a great expense, but we all know that it’s not a problem for them), and then suddenly release it.
In that regards, shouldn’t we need different levels of “membership trust”? One for “non-members who can exchange money” (without creating UD), one for the “members creating UD”, and “members who are so trustworthy that they can validate blocks”?
This must have probably addressed elsewhere and you’ll probably contradict me easily, but I couldn’t find any argument against this scenario so far (bear with me - I’m new here and I didn’t even finish the TRM book yet).