Ever since I heard-read of Ethereum and Blockchain I have become convinced that as permaculture is worldwide and not under the influence of any one government, we could really use and benefir from a Blockchain based value exchange mechanism of some kind.  Back in 2014 there was a fairly big splash around "Permacredits" then it all seemed to fizzle out quite rapidly; so I have two questions.

Does anyone know what happened to Permacredits?

Secondly do you know of any Blockchain based mechanism that would be good for permaculture?  

Why should permaculture need a different measure of value exchange than everyone else? It seems to me that bitcoin itself is a perfectly adequate exchange medium. Anything else is going to be less liquid, and therefore less useful.

The lesson that most small countries teaches us is that a strong external currency becomes a defacto second currency, as is seen with the US dollar in many parts of the world. The fact that it is backed by some external agency and not local institutions actually gives it greater value.

Or as a clearer specific example: Let say I'm a brick layer. I trade with other people in my close circle; the cement maker, the brick maker, maybe the site foreman. We like working together so we decide to agree our own special unit of currency. This works out fine for a while, right up until I decide to take a holiday and cash in my money. I suddenly discover that people outside my circle of trusted compatriots don't value our money. I can't buy tickets, book hotels, eat at restaurants. I may know - for example - that 1 unit will exchange for one hour of labour (or what ever metric you decide) but the outside world simply don't care. A hotel owner in some distant city doesn't care that my unit is worth an hour of Bob's time.

So for any permaculture currency to be viable it has to overcome the same basic rules that any currency does. It has to be widely accepted and easy to exchange for items of value. Until a permaculture currency does this I struggle to see how there will be a solution better than using a standard cryptocurrency (or normal currency!).

Michael Cox wrote:Or as a clearer specific example: Let say I'm a brick layer. I trade with other people in my close circle; the cement maker, the brick maker, maybe the site foreman. We like working together so we decide to agree our own special unit of currency. This works out fine for a while, right up until I decide to take a holiday and cash in my money. I suddenly discover that people outside my circle of trusted compatriots don't value our money. I can't buy tickets, book hotels, eat at restaurants. I may know - for example - that 1 unit will exchange for one hour of labour (or what ever metric you decide) but the outside world simply don't care. A hotel owner in some distant city doesn't care that my unit is worth an hour of Bob's time.

So for any permaculture currency to be viable it has to overcome the same basic rules that any currency does. It has to be widely accepted and easy to exchange for items of value. Until a permaculture currency does this I struggle to see how there will be a solution better than using a standard cryptocurrency (or normal currency!).

Thank you Michael, there are some scalability issues with Bitcoin and as many have pointed out it is quite energy intensive with "mining" etc, however I agree with your points "It has to be widely accepted and easy to exchange for items of value"

Mike Brunt wrote:there are some scalability issues with Bitcoin and as many have pointed out it is quite energy intensive with "mining" etc

These issues are inherent in blockchain cryptocurrencies, not specific to BitCoin. BitCoin's scarcity is determined by the resources needed to create it and process transactions, and this resource cost is the basis to its value (or maybe I should say price). I'd say the whole idea of a blockchain cryptocurrency is against permaculture, because it doesn't promote abundance and surplus, it promotes scarcity thru the wanton waste of resources. Having said that, one might still argue it's better than govt controlled debt based fiat currencies.

As of right now, Bitcoin uses about 50KWh of electricity per transaction, which roughly translates to 4 gallons of gas or 37 pounds of coal worth of CO₂ emissions. Per transaction! There are other complications too — most obviously, the coins must be mined first (more electricity) and most of that is done in China, where electricity is cheap due to coal powered electrical plants — even more CO₂.

Personally, I cannot ethically support such a wasteful enterprise, regardless of the freedom from state that it theoretically boasts. It's not a matter of scaling issues or small tweaks, it's a fundamental design design that all blockchain based technology shares — powering transactions through greenhouse gas emissions (electricity use) in a purposefully wasteful (electrically expensive) manner.

Kyle Neath wrote:As of right now, Bitcoin uses about 50KWh of electricity per transaction

As of 2017-09-28 each BTC transaction costs 208kWh -- about a week's worth of electricty for the average US home.

The electrical consumption of the Bitcoin network is increasing by (a relatively linear) 0.4% per day.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that Bitcoin (and the entire DLT mechanism) is completely unsustainable.

Get out while you can folks.

Up-to-date numbers and research (along with a scary graph) can be found here: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

One thing for sure is that crypto has definitely made some people well off, i wish i brought into ETH a few months ago...