What percentage of evil actors is necessary to overtake a group?

[Galuel]

@mKoeppelmann

You find the full ruleset here: http://www.ourbasicincome.wordpress.com (its only 12 simple rules)

I’ve read them, and I would like you to think about two points about it :

The rate at which the income is generated will increase by g=2% per year

That is to say when a newcomer will come into it, after the first ones, when the UBI you generate will be 2% of Monetary Mass, and supposing N fix members (with N variations it will be worse) and a life expectancy of 80 years, and so, in that case, following Relative Theory of Money Theory (RTM) formulas (you can also calculate by yourself, or simulate numerically Quantitatively and Relatively (in UBI) in a Libre Office CALC, download CALC file in the post) :

• An average of 1/(2%) = 50 UBI per member for present people at t1= starting point for the newcomer.
• The newcomer will have generated 27,5 UBI in his account at t=40 (or 55% of the average money per member)
• The newcomer will have generated 40 UBI in his account at t=80 juste before his death (or 79,8% of the average money per member).

And now how do you justify the first ones have an average of 50 UBI, when the newcomer will only generate 40 UBI in his whole life ?

Note that a high growth rate (inflation rate) destroys the capability of the currency as a store of value. Consequently, the potential dollar market cap is a function of the growth rate: market cap = f(g) (The market cap of the currency is a function of g that most likely will decrease sharply for bigger g like 5% or 10%). g should be chosen to maximize g*f(g).

This is denying relativity principle and denying men as the only fundamental basis of any economical value.

Some very simple things to think about to start understanding that point :

• Compare a money with 10 men and a (2%)/year rate versus a money with 10000 men and a (20%)/year rate.
• Compare a money with 1000 men and a 2% rate who produce absolutely nothing else but the money, and a money with 1000 men and a 20% rate who produce also bananas they sell accepting their own money.
• Compare a money with 1000 men and a 20% rate who produce bananas, and a money with 1000 other men and the same 20% rate who produce bananas, and also cars, computers, and electricity.
• Compare a money with 1000 men and a 20% rate who produce bananas, cars, computers and electricty and a money with 1000 other men and a 40 % rate who produce a Ğ(x) economical value.

What could you say, and what could you NOT say about the “market value”, that will be for sure shared by other people ? Do you think you can conclude anything that will be accepted by all present and future men about theese different cases, and many others we can imagine ?

So RTM doesn’t consider at all any relative value (like bananas, or $, or anything) to study a money, but only the money itself and the men who use it. RTM just care about every man, present or future will generate 100% of the average money share during their life, at the center point of 40 years = 1/2 average life expectancy.

And so this money system is not free, because some people will generate more money than others during their life expectancy, and so have privileges concerning money change. And so, because this money is not free, it is not so important to check how it is technically done, for sure a man who cares about freedom won’t choose such a money.

The same is to think : because this software is not free I won’t use it, and it is not because it does such thing better or not than other softwares, it is because I care about freedom. You have Libre Office presentation file, in english language to download here about that point.

[mKoeppelmann]

Thanks for your input. I need to think about it more and answer soon.

[mKoeppelmann]

@cgeek

Also, I do not see why you could not cumulate several BI in Circle. Why could not you create 3 accounts, have each recognized in a particular group, have cumulate money creation?

You are right. I have not thought about that but as you said: there is no reason to not have one account for the Berlin group and another account for the Word of Warcraft group.

@cgeek

Yes “group currency” is equivalent to a particular uCoin currency. The main difference here is that in uCoin you will have different money names to describe different currencies, whereas in Circles you only have “Circle” currency to describe a set of different currencies (maybe I am wrong about this point if “subCircles”, the currency of a group, can have a name).

This is right, we have to think about ways to communicate the system and to make clear that a lot of different currencies are involved without making it too complicated. This will be a challenge.

@cgeek

Anyway, you should definitely continue with your idea. I cannot say wether people will prefer your approach or mine (probably this won’t be all black or white ). If you search a bit in this forum, you will see that non-core members prefered your approach in a first time, and most of them still prefer it.

What I really prefer about uCoin is the “none-mining” approach. I totally agree that it is a huge wast of resources and I also have some doubts about the incentives (for Bitcoin) once the subsidy runes out. Gave a presentation on this topic some time ago in New York and Berlin.

However, I know that the ethereum developers have a lot of concerns about POW as well and are trying to move in different directions. If circles should help to solve the sybil problem a similar approach to uCoin might eventually be possible. For now the big advantage is that circles is only something like 100 lines of code.
I will publish a first version in a few days. So we can just try it out and see what happens.

Have you guys already thought about strategies to get it started and used by a lot of people and “real”
goods and services? One idea I have in mind is to start a crowdfunding campaign for a kiosk/super small super market (those are very typical for Berlin). There is a decent basic income movement in Germany so I expect that one could collect money from supporters to finance one year of running such a shop. This shop will sell its goods only for the new currency(ies). It should also be easy for new members to join. In the shop there will be information how to join. In the best case just download a app and create a account and this account can be directly added to the “shop group”. A new user could directly receive enough money to buy a beer.

[mKoeppelmann]

@Galuel

And so this money system is not free, because some people will generate more money than others during their life expectancy, and so have privileges concerning money change.

I absolutely like the idea that all men profit equally from the money creation process. However, I have some concerns because this is not the case for most of the goods and resources. Lets take oil, gold and property as an example. Today most of the oil wells are owned privately. So we don’t (yet?) have this redistribution mechanism for other stuff. Now I am worried that people will store their wealth in the ownership of the things I mentioned.

However, if a group is productive and they all agree to use a “free money” of course it can work. However, from a game theoretical perspective this might not be a stable situation because every individual of this group might be better of to receive the groups money but spend it fully in favor of something without the redistribution mechanism.
Now you could exclude those people but I would prefer a solution where no specific behavior is required to get a basic income.

In the long run we might think about mechanics to apply the free money rules to resources and property as well.

[Galuel]

@mKoeppelmann

However, I have some concerns because this is not the case for most of the goods and resources. Lets take oil, gold and property as an example. Today most of the oil wells are owned privately. So we don’t (yet?) have this redistribution mechanism for other stuff.

Let’s think a bit more than what was explained above after having deeply analyse it, and let’s go ahead on some other points to think about, points that are deeply explained by RTM :

• Money is, among all goods and resources, the only one that people use as a common economical value by definition, to estimate other values measures, and to trade. Everybody accept the money and measure with it. So with a free money, any people can exchange any resource, that does not mean people share all what they produce, that mean they share the universal resource able to help them to trade what they produce.
• So with a free money there is something new : the same ability for everyone to have a shared ability to trade any resource produced by the people who choose a free money.
• Goods and Resources are relatives, not absolute, not universal, but a free money among people who choose it, oil, gold and property are also relative values, not absolute or universal ones, we can always find some man, in the past, present or future, that estimate oil as no value, or a negative value, idem for gold or other stuff. So if you try to generalise the principle of free money to free resources, it cannot be correct without denying the relativity principle.
• Think about physics, any objects have different speeds, and when an observer O1 measure those speeds, he doesn’t obtain the same measures than a second one O2 depending on their relative speeds. But among all these objects there is one, photons, with a specific C speed, that never change when O1 or O2 measure it. Photons is a physical object, with that invariant speed, observers choose to measure they speeds, and it’s the only thing they agree between them. And because they agree in that one thing, they can exchange information between them, and share a common law of transformation between them, without agreeing on anything else.

Where there is relativity there is one point, one line, one map, one speed, one field, that can be invariant (this thing depending of the space where you define it, for instance RTM defines an economy space founded by men in space and time with limited life expectancy, and not a space where there are economical values not depending on men’s measures).

A free money is a space-time invariant field, that is invariant in space, time, and cumulative sum (relatively to men). It’s men based invariant economical value.