I really appreciate what you have done. I'm not a coder. What can I do to help you?
Hey, thanks! One thing I wish people would do more is just submit pull requests to the central FAQ, instead of just email/forum their questions. You could do that, or make a list so that I could do that more easily (message or email it to me). Also, I've been advised to go on the podcast "Let's Talk Bitcoin", you could find the guy running it and see if he's interested. You don't by any chance go to / know anyone at Princeton? Many of the items here will require, at some point, careful attention from Bitcoin-dev-experts. Just spreading the word is nice, would like to get (smart) people talking about it so that we can get the criticism we need to produce a viable implementation. Answer people's questions. That's all I can think of right now.
the supply is fixed and the price per share is determined by splitting the fixed shares-per-day among all the donators from any particular day. (Personally I think you should count time in terms of blocks instead of days, but whatever).
I'm having trouble with this, is it like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction#Public_offerings
If not, it seems you'd want to wait until a day when few people are donating.
I do *not* recommend distributing shares to miners. Mining has not been "fair" or "decentralized" for like a year now. Even if you go with POW, their rewards should be paid explicitly from the network's income rather than implicitly via coin/share dilution. Miners are subcontractors for your network.
If you read Satoshi's whitepaper, you'll see the blockrewards were distributed to miners for two
reasons. Firstly, they provided subcontracting, but secondly they "[provided] a way to initially distribute coins into circulation". Kaldor-Hicks (profitability) is not enough, a value network must be a Pareto Improvement (incentive compatible for a critical mass
) to get people to switch and re-create the network effects of money (which are paramount). This second reason contributed more
to Bitcoin's success, in my view, than the first "subcontractor" reason. If Satoshi had given (not mined) any coins to himself, he would invite an immediate fork(s) of the project, and critical mass and network effects would never have emerged.
There is also a question of coin distribution vs share distribution. Whichever is the one that pays fees is the one that should be preallocated to AGS/PTS/"PTC".
I still think the Coins should go to Bitcoin holders (for the allocation reason above), yet the first branch of Votecoins, with many held by / publicly endorsed by me (as I think that I can most inspire trust, after doing all of this work) should be distributed to developers/funders/contributors/etc. But its hardly a settled issue.
Again, the Votecoins are not "free", one must do the work of Voting (for which you are paid). This is a little inconvenient, I don't know how people would feel about this.
In the ancient past, shareholders did a lot of work, monitoring their corporation and electing its Board and Executive Managers. Today, people just kick back and do nothing. In my opinion, this is the source of much of today's economic failure (huge firms with none of the owners knowing or caring about what's going on).