@jwildeboer I still think that the Hayekian independent currency would be a great idea, but unfortunately, we have learned the hard way, that computational difficulty is not the way how to limit amount of such currency.
@jannis_vll I did explain that in my follow up comments. Decentralised consensus mechanisms are very interesting. But using "money" as the prototype vehicle fr these things is wrong IMHO. Decentralised Identity owenership for example, strikes me as far better suited.
@jwildeboer I think it's one of the easiest to implement. Since you can reward people who participate in building with money. You can't however reward them with extra identities. If you look into blockchains with smart contracts, they could provide decentralized identities, but to keep people interested in hosting part of the decentralized chain, it's far easier to build upon a "money" chain IMHO.
@jannis_vll identity ownership is in IMHO a fundamental human right, not a business. So bringing money into the game is not my goal. At all.
@jwildeboer I 100% agree. Running infrastructure isn't free however, I believe in paying with money rather than with my data. Of course a model run by volunteers or based on crowdfunding etc. would be a better solutions than paying (not everyone is able to pay for this).
As a start, sponsoring the fees (which at least on ether only occur when changing data not when looking at it) or even taking some money would be "normal" since (sadly) id documents aren't exactly free at the moment. 1/2
@jwildeboer this could make it possible to hit the floor running with your id idea rather than starting from scratch.
Side note: privacy is a real problem in my opinion since everyone could see every id this way.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name