Where are the central bank haters?

Difficult to distinguish ideologies from business especially in cryptoworld. Many central bank haters spend their hard earned money to buy BTC, without the liberalism belief, they probably cannot withstand the volatility. For myself, I can buy more NSR by selling other cryptos, but I won’t, because I hate central banks.

According to Hayek, “It was not ‘captitalism’ but government intervention which has been responsible for the recurrent crises of the past”. They are tragedy maker, unforgivable.

Even the central bankers haters use FIAT money everyday.

They have no chioce, you cannot say a woman enjoy being raped because she cannot resist.

Creating an anti-inflation currency is simple if the DAO has renenue, just lifting the price of sell/buy wall.

These fixed-supply currencies would have nothing to do with the actual asset price. BTC-NBT would probably have a marketcap like $100k, therefore its price would likely be something like $0.006/BTC-NBT. This is a shift on @Sabreiib’s triangle from flexing 3 to flexing 1 (sacrificing the stable exchange rate).

1 Like

Ok. I thought we were talking about a NBT pegged to the BTC price.
What is the point of BTC-NBT then?

1 Like

@tomjoad answered you above…

The security model in proof-of-stake cryptos like Peercoin requires the rewarding of interest to minters for securing the network. Because of these continuous rewards, the currency supply will never stop expanding. A lot of hardcore crypto people don’t like this about proof-of-stake coins. They don’t like the constant inflation and they believe it causes the rich to get richer. Those who care deeply about a fixed supply would rather stick with Bitcoin and proof-of-work with all its problems.

We can cater to these people by creating a fixed supply version of Bitcoin that runs on Nu’s blockchain. Security would be taken care of by NuShareholders through proof-of-stake. Because PoS interest is rewarded in the form of NuShares, the supply of BTC-NBT wouldn’t need to be inflated for security and could remain fixed at 21 million coins, just like Bitcoin.

Any BTC-NBT sold would be profit for Nu. Since the price would be free floating, no money would need to be spent on providing liquidity. We could follow along with Bitcoin’s current supply, which is already over 15 million coins. Maybe we could somehow mirror Bitcoin’s blockchain and give out the initial 15+ million BTC-NBT in equivalent amounts to the people who already own Bitcoin. So for example, person A owns 1 Bitcoin person B owns 100 Bitcoin. Mirroring the Bitcoin blockchain onto Nu would allow the same people to own 1 and 100 BTC-NBT for free.

As the supply of Bitcoin increased through PoW block rewards, we would create and sell equivalent amounts on the open market, so the supply of Bitcoin and BTC-NBT continue to match each other. One thing people won’t like is the manual distribution of new coins to keep up with Bitcoin inflation. I would suggest a multisig group like FLOT being granted a new batch of coins to sell every 2-3 months. This prevents the entire 21 million coin supply from being held by too few people and puts more control into the hands of shareholders to keep distribution going, since regular grants will be required.

Unlike Bitcoin, transaction fees in Nu are destroyed. This creates profit for Nu. Let’s say all 21 million coins were distributed over time. Once Bitcoin hits that target, no more coins will be created, but if Nu hits that target, transaction fees will slowly eat away at the 21 million supply. We would need to keep creating grants of new BTC-NBT in order to replace all the coins destroyed through transaction fees. Grants could only be created up to 21 million though. If the currency supply is still expanding and hasn’t yet hit 21 million, the same would be true. Any part of the supply destroyed through transaction fees would be replaced by selling more BTC-NBT on the market. This would make it so the supply of Bitcoin and BTC-NBT both match each other.

Another major benefit is that BTC-NBT holders would have a say in the overall network (through motions) and share in any profits if they bought NuShares. The same can’t be said for Bitcoin, where huge miners control everything and the majority of users have no say at all. At Nu they’ll be able to make money by selling currency and make their voices heard by using Nu’s model of decentralized governance.

It remains to be seen whether there would be any interest in a fixed supply proof-of-stake coin. Since no liquidity provision is involved, the cost of implementing and supporting such a coin would be low, so I think there’s no reason why we shouldn’t at least try it. There’s always the possibility it could be a hit and provide the network with some income from sold BTC-NBT, which could be used for liquidity operations, development, marketing, share buybacks, dividends, etc…

I have a question though. How would selling coins to keep up with Bitcoin inflation work? Wouldn’t we be constantly putting downward pressure on the price? Also, what price would we start selling BTC-NBT at and why?


I like the idea in general, although I have some doubts regarding adoption.
Depending on how much effort it is to code that product, it might be worth testing it.
I want to point out that BTC-NBT holders can’t vote in motions, because the PoS that processes BTC-NBT is maintained by NSR holders; it would be another currency like NBT, but with controlled supply rather than controlled price.
You more or less said that; I just wanted to make it even clearer.

The initial distribution on a snapshot date to BTC address in relation to their UTXO could raise some awareness at BTC holders for BTC-NBT if properly announced.

The thing is: it will be hard to find and exchange that lists BTC-NBT.
There’s some potential confusion and it will be utterly important to explain what BTC-NBT is and what not.
People might even distribute confusing information on purpose to sell BTC-NBT (which they’d received for free in the initial distribution) at high prices claiming that it’s a currency pegged by Nu to the BTC rate.
Nu so far is known for providing price pegged products and only for that.

This must not happen!

We might be able to convince BCE to list BTC-NBT.
Then you could maintain a sell side operation there, which uses BCE itself as price feed.
The sale account could be refilled with 25 BTC-NBT per 10 minutes or 3,600 per day (until the next coinbase reward halving).
That wouldn’t mirror the BTC distribution exactly, but I don’t think that’s necessary.
Not dumping all 6 million BTC-NBT that remain for sale at once is for sure better for the BTC-NBT rate; there are already 15 million BTC-NBT in the hands of people who didn’t pay anything for them.
The sell pressure will be huge!

Without having an estimate for the development costs (and without a crystal ball) it will be hard to make an estimation about the ROI of this product.

This is why the naming convention is important. We already have someone confused just in this thread, lol. A new name, like FSN-BTC (fixed supply nu bitcoin).

As for distribution, we should use something like weekly or monthly auctions of a fixed amount until we hit the current distributed BTC supply, then we dilute at the 12.5 or 25 btc/block rate (estimated). Seeded auctions for bonus points.

Yes, this will cause downpressure on the price. But that’s kinda the point I’m trying to make around here. Literally every crypto project dilutes. Bitcoin dilutes, bitshares dilutes, peercoin dilutes, ether dilutes. Dilution is what allows blockchains to have an incentive model. The idea that we are the only one diluting is absurd. Hell, we’ve bought back more than we’ve diluted, so we’ve diluted less than literally every other cryptocurrency on the market.


I am not sure fixed supply and pegging can be had at the same time. Pegging requires issuing the currency when demand is high and vice versa. Without pegging the token’s price is determined by market and has little to do with btc price.

1 Like

This is not meant as a pegged currency.
It should more or less follow BTC’s distribution scheme, although the FSN-BTC wouldn’t be paid to miners.
It would be a volatile product with a capped supply.
It would indeed have little to do with BTC except for the number of tokens.

Try reading my reply above. As MoD said, it’s not meant to be pegged to Bitcoin’s price. It’s a volatile crypto with a fixed supply like Bitcoin, but runs on proof-of-stake, rather than proof-of-work. I don’t believe there exists something like this at the moment. Every fixed supply coin that I know runs on PoW. I explain more in my post above.

We could do the entire initial distribution in a single seeded auction. Just put all 15.5 million up for auction with a single closing date. Have people register address pairs, just like a seeded auction, and have the auctioneer do the manual check each day or maybe twice a week for people that sent funds from an unregistered address. Then, when the auction closes, burn all NBT collected at the auction address and distribute the entire supply of FSN-BTC based on how many NBT each address pair submitted. Call it an IPO.

We could also do multiple single-side auctions, that’s not really an issue. However, I don’t really think we want to do full dual-side auctions because we aren’t ever going to seed the NBT side (BTC is never destroyed).

Of course the auctioneer could be multisig, but it would make sending back funds to people that didn’t register properly more complicated. That’s the biggest reason I can think of to do it in multiple auctions.

Is there any way to do the FSN-BTC addresses as a mirror of the US-NBT addresses, like PPC and NSR have? Then the registration wouldn’t be a problem and we could do it all as multisig.

For each private key there will be 1 of each type of Nu blockchain token (in fact, all cryptos), correct? In that case, there should be a button you can press in the fully complex wallet to import the same private key to all the different currencies. Then, you’ve effectively registered those addresses every which way and we can host whatever kind of auctions we want without registration.

1 Like

I’m in!

If it’s built as deterministic wallet, sure. Is the Nu wallet such a wallet? Are the PPC and the NSR addresses connected that way?

You’d rather derive the public key of different currencies from the seed, right?

That’d be awesome!

Now that I think about it, I realize that I don’t understand how it really works. I mean, how can the Nu wallet, that’s used to distribute the PPC dividends derive the PPC addresses from the NSR addresses?
So I don’t know how the Nu wallet used in the seeded auction can derive the public FSN-BTC keys/addresses from the public NBT keys/addresses, which were used to send funds to the auction.
But I’m damn sure it’s possible just like the PPC distribution through NSR addresses is!

I’ve always been a fan of seeded auctions after you introduced them.
It’s good to see how useful they could be in this scenario.

1 Like

They use the same private key. The process for generating the address is described here, is the same for almost every coin. The diference lies in the point 4 (where a 00 prefix is added for BTC network), if you add another prefix the final address start with other letter, such as 37 for the P of PPC or the 19 for the B in NBT addresses. So you can receive and send coins from all those address since you have all their private keys (the same one).

Nothing to do with deterministic wallets. Nothing to do with Nu. Can be done because the properties of public key encryption.
It is certainly useful for doing such linked auctions. You would only need to know the privkey of the address from where you send the auction payment to redeem any number of other blockchain’s coins.

Yes! And if it’s all in the same client we can easily make a “import priv key to other wallets” button and tada, that address is now autoregistered for all Nu auctions. You don’t have to use the same priv key for other things, this would only be important for the auctions, so there’s no sacrifice to network security in other areas. Of course, the public auction would pose a small security risk on the addresses involved because an attacker would have 2 points of data about the private key instead of the usual 1.

I don’t see why. An attacker has the same. Nothing.

If you have a BTC generated address and a PPC generated address from the same private key, and you know they’re from the same private key, that’s 2 pieces of information.

They are the same public key, just represented differently. That’s the misconception I am trying to explain. Take a look at this NBT, BTC and PPC addresses. Same private key, same public key, different address representation.

I’m a bit slow.
Sorry for that.

Do I understand it right that registering addresses for seeded auctions isn’t necessary, because the address AND public key of the deposit is known - in fact the address is just a different representation of the public key, right?
From that public key any address of any other coin (that is compatible with regard to generation of addresses) can be generated.

The part about redeeming funds is quite clear as I understand that you can generate addresses from private keys.
The auction participant has a private key. With that he/she sends funds to the auction.
Depending on the outcome, the deposit or the proceeds get sent to one or the other address and can be redeemed by the participant.

1 Like

Coming back to the original thread, I think that new people is not coming in mainly because the huge entry barrier to use Nu.

We are talking about new systems, new coins, new solutions, because we are afraid that the absence of new users marks that Nu is not so useful after all. And I think that we forget that Nu works.

From what I know, people that want a stable coin, or a hedge instrument against BTC know Nu, and use Nu. We can see that when BTC goes crazy high and NBT liquidity vanish.
Altcoin hipsters are always in the last crypto vibe, right now ETH.
But what about the rest of the people? The ones not actively involved in crypto and not technical and economically curious?
We don’t provide a clear path to them.

When I tell someone on that group about Nu, the questions that arise are like:
Why do I need it? How do I use it? Why is it better than I did before?
And then the only option is a long, intellectually intensive exercise to understand current economic problems and evaluate the proposed, equally intensive and almost visionary proposed solution: Nu.
That questions should be straightforward answered with a simple sentence.

We question why the first obvious users (bank haters) don’t come, but as I see it, it is a signal that there is a problem to join Nu, not only for bank haters, but for every average joe.
Let’s be real, even if bank haters saw us as another fed, or another conspiration, or had any other problem with Nu, there would have to be at least some of them that do not see it/do not understand/do not care; and instead, we see no one.

Unfortunately this sounds plausible. If we can attract bank haters, we might be able to attract average joe as well, if the reason for the absence of both parties really is the same.

This initiative

combined with a website, that can easily be updated by anyone (once it’s hosted on github) to make it easier to present Nu as what it is - one of the most successful stable currency projects so far! - might help a big deal.