Bitcoin Forum

Why 2.0?

It's simple:

1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.

2. Deflation. After introducing solution to first problem - we will have everyone with right money exchanged to BTC's. That's good, but consider that about 1% of people can lose their accounts due to an system crashes or smth. WE NEED to have for example additional 1% of the coins to be introduced to the system every year. This will stop people keeping money in the pockets like it is happening with the gold and will just keep accurate amount of bitcoins in move.

Fees would need to be - let's say 0.1% of the transaction. This way we will keep miners running and also we will have our network secured stoping spammers from sending mBTC or less transfers to crash network.

Sorry for my poor ugly english, it's not my native language. :)

BTW. i own some BTC's as i really belive in the IDEA of free currency, however this implementation have BIG disadvantages and it must be changed or exchanged to something else, otherwise we will se just small amount of users (mainly early adopters) in the network.

I am too beginning to think it's a ponzi scheme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcdE9ngx08

simple answer, start your own blockchain. distribute initial coins however you want. when it becomes more widely accepted and has more network power than Bitcoin then I will be the first to congratulate you.

No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.

No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.

What do you think about people who invest in successful companies?

Resource allocation matters.  

Companies = work... apple microsoft did somethineg, early adopters didn't. They just use other people money basing on the idea.

edit: investing into company is something WAY different than investing in new currency. Dont mess two different things.


I know a lot of early adopters will even kill if there is need just to get more people in the system and get price higher. Not that kind of things world have already seen.
Let them be rich, but not 10% of the system money and NOT for nothing. And countries wont accept BTC unless it's fairly distributed at start. GL if you think it will be other way - for example Greece accepting it just like that. They will also get it as ponzi scheme.

And i don't mind getting my own network (no way to get more popular than actual system - it's first, it's like an gold). I am not too good programmer to get it work, i like current idea and i think that it should get into for example 1 billion people, but then should be started again distributing coins without mining - just as many $ you have - that many BTC's u will get.

One of Bitcoin's great virtue is its sociological consideration. How are you going to build an economy when nobody see a benefit in promoting this currency?

If you have inflatecoin and somebody started bitcoin, guess who's going to win?

That's exactly what exchanges will do, and already do.

Early adopters do not necessarily get rich - they only get rich if they saw the exchange rate increase and didn't sell, from the very start to that hypothetical future moment resist the temptation to cash out and risk losing something or everything.

Also, in general I agree a somewhat better introduction rate function could have been chosen, but I'm far from convinced what a better rate would be.

If you need something new since you dont approve of bitcoin as it is, that is your choice and start a new chain.

It will all depend on how well it gets established in order to "compete" with bitcoin.

Every country, government can be viewed as a Ponzi scheme, you can join them, or become a outcast.

People on the Mayflowers (and all those came to the New World) were sure Ponzi scheme perpetrators

Mining is just an good advertisement for the network :) 'MONEY for NOTHING' ? that's how 90% of the miners work.

Idea had to be spreaded somehow and it's working this way. Good. There was NO other option. But early adopters will be rich and any of the last adopters will need to work for them JUST like that?? Thats NOT good. This can be a killer for Bitcoins.


@Clipse - thats not response on any of the problems i have put in first post. Say why it isn't ponzi scheme and here will be no deflation.

@bitcool - every country as an ponzi scheme? Taxes are shit, but tell me who is paying for school of your kids or police? I KNOW they are way too high - i see bitcoin here only as a way to see the money flooding government accounts - and that's excellent. It's just the way to lower them or pay by self  - and that's also excellent , however it can be done also with currenty money unless you are living in country that's not democratic one.
Since you we're born - you had no choice which money you want to use in your country, but your work = money, isn't it ? How does it work in Bitcoin??

I like how BitterTea answered the early adopter argument.


Would you have though it was such a good idea then? Perhaps. Would you have invested in it? Maybe. The thing is, information is valuable (extremely valuable), and people with the proper information early on will reap the rewards.

Am I jealous that they learned about Bitcoin before me? Yes, but I'm not complaining that a voluntary currency is a Ponzi scheme like some people. That's just silly.

This is a beautiful idea. Now go start your custom block chain. I won't join, just so you know.

@rezin777 consider you working for their just 1 btc - building house for it in 2050, then we will talk :) Good that you joined network after 2 years of existence, but think what will happen if 'internet' will tell you about bitcoins in 2049?

@goatpig - another senseless post ;) i like current idea too, just post something more informative, constructive about 2 problems(why they are not problems here?) i posted or quit this topic  : - )
I had to write that:  otherwise i will start to think that this network is currently build only by speculators and nerds that like to be better than others by any way and also like to piss of other net surfers for fun.

Like I said, information is very valuable. Unfortunately for us, we don't live in a world where everyone has all the information about all things at all times. This is a silly argument. If everyone is getting an influenza vaccine, and I die of influenza because I live in the woods and never heard about an influenza vaccine, does that mean that influenza vaccines are unfair? No, it doesn't.

You can choose to use the tool or not, crying that the people who found the tool first have an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Suggesting a voluntary currency is a Ponzi scheme is just as ridiculous.

You don't appear to know what a Ponzi scheme is, and you don't seem to have a good understanding of how Bitcoin works.

A Ponzi scheme involves lying about how much capital there is. You might invest $1 million, and then I might lie and tell you that I've managed to double your investment, when in reality I've done nothing. It's the act of deliberately misrepresenting the amount of capital available that makes it fraud.

Bitcoins cannot be a Ponzi scheme in themselves, because there's no one person who decides their worth. Bitcoins are, at worst, merely a risky investment.

Secondly, you seem to assume that everyone will buy up bitcoins and hoard them, but the value of bitcoins derives from their ability to transfer wealth without the need for an intermediate financial institution. If no-one's using bitcoins, then they have no worth beyond speculation, and you can't grow an economy from scratch to $10 billion on speculation alone.

If bitcoins ever get to $10,000 / 1 BTC, then it will be because people are regularly using them to transfer money. It's the infrastructure and social following that would give bitcoins their value; we won't ever get into a situation where billions of dollars are invested in a currency no-one uses.

Finally, you seem to be upset that early adopters stand to gain large amounts of money "for nothing" if bitcoin succeeds. You don't seem to appreciate that anyone investing in bitcoins at this point is taking a risk. If you invest $1000 in bitcoins, then there's a strong possibility you'll lose your investment if the currency fails. The principle of high-risk/high-reward is nothing unusual.

No I mean it, if you think your idea is worth it, go ahead and start your own block chain. The changes you are talking about are easy to implement, and the source is available to all. Then we shall all wait and see if you can get it running with premises such as:

1) The promotion of inflation under the govern of your gut feelings, since there is no tangible way to discern between coins held on for long periods of time and lost private keys. GG decentralization.

2) Early adopters should be slapped in the face and have their wealth seized for taking the risk to invest and bootstrap the currency.

3) Low to inexistent security, for miners shouldn't be rewarded so, since their work amounts to "nothing". It's also nice to run under a project lead who "really belive in the IDEA of free currency" but can't wrap his mind around its most prominent technological feature...

4) Transaction fees modeled solely on volume, so that people can actually spam the network by throwing satoshis at each other.

5) To pretend to support a free currency all the while looking to change it in order to have countries endorse it. Gotta know what you want son.

One nice bag of nonsense. Let's call it BackwardsCoin, shan't we?

+1

Bitcoin is a STARTUP currency. Without speculation, it would probably be impossible to bootstrap the currency, because new economies take a long time to develop. Early adopters have to be rewarded. What other way would possibly work?

@weavejester but simple thing is that the first people that bought bitcoins will have earnings just for being first adopters of this currency... Its value grow because of deflation-way it's built. Maybe it's called different than "ponzi scheme" maybe i am wrong here, but you get my point. Maybe money they get isn't that big i said. If they will have let's say 1% of the network spreaded to 100 people - then it's ok, but simple guy having 2% of worlds money ? (400k coins or even more) It's 100 000 000 people working for him for around a month or even more if people don't use all money they have all the time. Isn't that still a lot?


@goatpig:

1) promotion here is good as i said. I said that  i wont start my network, but if it will need to happen then it will be yr. 2020 i.e. when everyone know WHAT bitcoin is and then set exact START date so noone will double transactions or so.

2) @up + sorry but investing pizza for 10k btc's isn't an investment. It's way under price. Dunno why people sold their btc's even if there was not really a lot of adopters? It was sure this idea will survive as it's new and DIFFERENT than any other ideas like Klamm lose or other stuff that's centralized. I always put money in such things but it was just spam of centralized shit so it was not worth of that

3) i dont understand completly what you said but if you mentioned not earning miners then - they will earn by fees spent in network, and also by 1% of money growth every year ( i am talking here for day in years 2100+ because currently system will work for that year or even earlier with decent payout for miners just for 'mining' blocks)

4) Yes i am mistaken here - it's just an idea, it could be methmatically changed for example to have lowest minimum that is around $0.001 valued in BTC's ofc - for lowest transactions with low priority.

5) ??? sorry, even translating this in google don't help me to understand what you mean.

Yes... so what? If I invested $1500 in Google stock in 1999, I'd have over $1 million by 2004. How is bitcoin any different?

I don't think you quite appreciate the fact that, at the moment, investing in bitcoins is a risk. There's no guarantee that the price of bitcoins will continue to rise, just as there was no guarantee that Google would become as successful as it is today.

Early adopters get large returns because they shoulder large risks. Anyone investing in Bitcoin should be fully prepared to lose whatever money they put in.

Now you got me lost. You're saying if Bitcoin works, then you'll start Bitcoin 2.0? I thought the point of Bitcoin 2.0 was to fix Bitcoin "1.0". If 1.0 needs to be fixed, naturally it can't work right? So how is it gonna make it to 2020 without your superior guidance? I say you should start your block chain right now. And I changed my mind, let's call it HurrDurrCoin.


You seem to be under the illusion that Bitcoins are actually worth $10,000 each and that the whole process of public adoption is but a mere formality waiting to happen. If that's the case, first you should quickly buy all those BTC for $8 or so, that's literally getting it for pennies on the dollar, twice over. Second, why would Bitcoin need to be "fixed" again?


So you're saying you think the fee alone won't be able to sustain good enough security. Your solution is to systemically inflate the currency. What makes you think people will switch over a taxed block chain when they can simply let the market figure it out on the original chain?


You say you like the idea of a free currency. But then you say you want to modify that currency so that governments start liking it too. This takes away the "free" part.

@weavejester - Google stocks are google stocks, BTC is what you will HAVE to use when it comes to use as this is going to be global currency (i think that's the point?). That makes big difference. Noone want you to put money in the google stocks, however if btc become popular you will have to. And there will be always late adopters (someone has to be ?). I just consider option that BTC is global system where everyone is in it, not an $<->BTC speculative one or whatever you call it (investment one). Last adopters will always lose this way. Bitcoin v2.0 or however we should call it should just distribute money in better way as i said to be more fair to all. That's all. If you just make it as an investment then you can't call it money, and if you can call it money then it must be distributed properly to replace current money on the market, otherwise it's an pyramid where early adopters earn sitting and waiting for more people to come and put $s (their work) in system. We are talking about changing whole monetary system, not an risky investment to system that can fail probably.


@goatpig

1) the problem is that "my" bitcoin can't START and current bitcoin is unfair. That's why i say it would need to be in 2020 when everyone already heard about bitcoin and will be ready to exchange to "my" bitcoin in 2020 while still using $ in 2019 december, not an 1.0v of BTC. If v. 1.0 will get spread then it will be pyramided as i said so it won't be fixed any way possible.

2) (read what i wrote to @weavejester in this post)

3) about fees - current system is ok, but there was talk about how much of it should be implemented (percentiles of transaction or minimum fee) - i just say that it should be changed dynamically by the system to be always MINIMUM for example 1/10 of the price of matches or something like that. And that 1% of money growth per year - to keep money in same state of work/amount without deflation. It will be just easier for whole system and will put more miners into the network. We are talking about times 2050 or later when it's stable and working for all people around the world.

5) i don't like idea of any governments to be a part of it, i would love to see HOW much they really earn and be able to cut that off to the total minimum. I am mainly here because of that. I just love the idea to be free of the taxes, and pay really for what i have and would like to pay. The main thing i don't like is just the distribution and a lot of people will probably won't join thinking they are an 1mil person that will pay 100$ for one coin when other people sit on money being first.

last thing: Until money stabilize we can't use it everyday(too high price changes). Thats really hard and i hope a lot of people will join fast and 1 BTC will be always in the same work ratio.

And why not? Because that wouldn't be *fair*? Well, look around you! The world isn't fair at all. I'm sure 20% of the worlds population owns 80% of all wealth. Is that fair? Heck, no! This time it is might be hackers that gets to hold that money, not stock brokers, or people that inherit all their money.

Bitcoin isn't fair, but at least it was open for anyone. You (and I) didn't get on this train early enough. Shit happens. Get over it.

Actually, part of the point of Bitcoin is that no one is forcing you to use it (unlike fiat currencies).

Not clear at all.  Depends what happens in the future.  If BTC goes up to $10 million, the move from $0 to $8 will be totally irrelevant.

This is ignorant and offensive.  First, many of the early adopters were instrumental in actually building the system.  And, now, due to the appreciation of bitcoin, I imagine some are afforded the opportunity to quit their day jobs and work entirely on the bitcoin infrastructure.  Second, someone putting money into bitcoins early on is not someone getting something for nothing.  They had to trade something to acquire those bitcoins.  And I imagine they had to work in some capacity to obtain whatever it was that they traded for bitcoins.  That is wealth that they chose to put into bitcoins that they could have otherwise used to by food or the latest iGadget.  They were taking a risk that they might lose every bit of wealth they invested.

Also, as for 10%, well, for that to be a significant amount, you would have to believe that bitcoins are going to replace most other currencies...I think that is simply unrealistic (at least not anytime soon).  There are already competing alternatives (including existing national currencies) and there will likely be more.

I would encourage you to start a competing currency...if people agree with your sense of fairness, they might invest...especially if you offer a very large potential appreciation to early investors.  ;)

So what if bitcoins become expensive? it won't be at all like giving all your money to the early adopters, you give some early adopter 1000$ he gives you a bitcoin, you purchase goods or services worth 1000$ using that bitcoin or trade it back whenever you see fit... you don't lose anything by it and early adapters gain some wealth, a very few maybe a lot, so what, nothing compared to govt institutions...

Not even the most optimistic bitcoin enthusiasts are predicting that bitcoin will replace all world currencies!


No, you're talking about changing the whole monetary system. Everyone else considers bitcoin to be a fun experiment and currently a risky investment.

If bitcoin succeeds, it will be as an alternative payment method. You'll still be able to pay things in dollars/euros/pounds/yen/whatever, especially since governments usually expect to pay your taxes in the local currency.


That's probably a good indication it will succeed ;)


Adopting bitcoin doesn't mean you'll be magically free of taxes.


You could just peg the value of whatever you're selling to a dollar value until the price stabilizes. You'd still pay in bitcoins, but the price would be determined by the exchange rate.

No. This is why I'm telling people like you with either a pontificating disorder coupled with limited understanding of economics or control issues to start their own block chain and see for themselves to true nature of the blight they have given birth to. No one is forcing you to use Bitcoins. Bitcoins will only take over the entire international economy if its properties appeal to every member of the economy. Obviously it won't, look at yourself.


Current Bitcoin isn't unfair, you're just reacting emotionally to it. But that's beyond the point. Now I see the full extent by which you are detached from reality. You are saying in a late future, when Bitcoin will be known to all, you shall start your superior coin and everyone will drop Bitcoin and join yours on day 1 because Bitcoin is flawed and your chimera fixes these flaws. How is that gonna work exactly? If Bitcoin is flawed, it will fail, and you won't have a community willing to join another version of it in throngs from day 1. The very idea that a concept should gain public approval on the sole premise that it is flawed and a fraud is disturbing. If anything, you should start your block chain this very moment. Every second you allow that fraudulent block chain to monopolize people's mind is a second more of work for you to redeem the name of Bitcoin so that v2.0 can take over. On the other hand, if v1.0 is a success, then obviously it isn't flawed, your changes are useless, and no one will join your 2.0. Actually, let's call it Bitcoin -2.0.


What are they losing? There are 3 types of currency models out there: inflationary, deflationary, stabilized (roflol pixie dust). Entry upon the market doesn't affect your outstanding wealth, so the only meaningful effect is the appreciation of your wealth over time. With an inflationary model, you stand at best to maintain your wealth, at worst to lose it all but a tiny fraction. With a stabilized model, you stand to drink the cool aid. With a deflationary model, you stand to maintain your wealth at worst, buy a space ship with spare change at best. So I'd like to see how you're losing anything.



I get it now, you're 12.



With that level of inflation you're looking to double your monetary mass every 70 years or so...


Yet you want to change the currency to have governments adopt it. Do you want governments in or out of it? It's getting hard to follow you.


You don't like taxes but you hate deflation and are in love with inflation? 'scuse me wha?


The mother principle of private property is first come first served. Are you against private property too?

LOOOOL  ;D This just caused me to laugh uncontrollably for like 3 minutes straight.

All societies are pyramid schemes anyway. They start off with a few people stumbling upon vast amounts of usable land that no one else has found yet. After a few generations they are the "establishment", and future generations are at their mercy. Still, the "newbies" don't just up and leave, because they've grown up in the culture of the new society. A young man is promised that if he works for the first half of his life, he won't have to work for the second. Of course, this requires new "suckers" (the next generation) to support him in his old age.

Along the way, everyone becomes more secure and comfortable as technological discoveries are made, but each new generation is afforded less and less dignity. Except for the increasingly small ruling class--generally the direct descendants of the founders and a few very capable people who have "climbed up the pyramid"--the population is gradually stripped of general knowledge and self-sufficiency. Eventually the gap in wealth, knowledge, power, and culture between the elite and the (much larger) underclass becomes so great that communication between the two groups breaks down. The establishment stops promising newbies that if they work hard for a while they'll reap the rewards later. This usually comes to a head, with the ignorant, confused underclass feeling ripped off without being able to explain exactly why they feel that way, and the elite--having "drunk their own Koolaid", so to speak--indignant, unable to understand why these people, who have comfort and security--at the (hidden) cost of autonomy and dignity--are complaining.

At this point, the society usually collapses, either by falling prey to a younger, healthier society (like Israel fell to the Assyrians), or by simply consuming all of its wealth and disintegrating like the Romans.

I expect this currency to fail in the next 50 years. I feel computers won't be secure enough for crypto-currencies for about 6 generations (150 years). The value of bitcoins will crash if people feel their private keys are no longer secret and are being actively abused or tracked.

When the crash happens, the UN can act as a "neutral" third-party to start bitcoin 2.0. Hopefully, the second version will correct any oversights in the protocol. The "bitcoin trillionaires" would be wise to invest in computing and power generation infrastructure in order to get a head-start on this new currency as well.

@weavejester: I dont want to be free of taxes, i just want pay that many btc's(or $) as it is mentioned to be in real instead of paying quazilions of $ additional taxes for the bureaucratic system with people sitting behind their desks answering my phone with lowered voice to piss me off.


If BTC != change for whole monetary system then BTC can be perfect currency over internet - it does have big potential with support of $, € or other currencies. No fees, centralization and safety with anonymity - that's what i like in here:) if i wan't - i pay fees to make things faster, goood. And here with this vision of this currency, it can be as everyone said. I just mentioned it as global system that will just exchange USD or other inflationary currencies:)

This way i agree with you and everything is ok in here:)


@goatpig - you don't get my idea of bitcoin 2.0 and its start moment/idea. Read what i wrote again please. And it doesn't have to be MY coin. It can be started by Satoshi to be backed up by good authority. Point here is that it will fail because everyone just put money into Bitcoin (lets say v.1.0) so noone will exchange. There is no way another bitcoin will have chances to survive as GLOBAL MONETARY SYSTEM unless ALL countries PROVIDE exchange of all their money IN WEEK OR MONTH ! No way it can happen. Thats why bitcoin v.1.0 will survive and will be some kind of investment program for first investors.


About deflation: tell me then how early adopters will be able to build houses for 1 coin or lets say 100 coins?? Who is losing ? Early adopters because THEY build those houses while early adopters sit and drink cold drinks for microbitcoins.

"i get it now, you're 12." - i am not insulting you, and i hope you won't too. Everyone have other thoughts, thats why we are here. I just say that bitcoin can be somehow bit more fair to all. That's all.

"double your monetary mass every 70 years"... if we consider people losing BTC's on their accounts then how it can be done? it will be stable if here will be small sum of coins coming everyday. Let it be 0.1% yearly then. Just to have miners working and paying their bills for electricity and GPU's.


About taxes: I WILL pay taxes, just not as high as now (it can be even 38% in my country). Deflation can happen, but not that high as now. It will stabilize someday for sure but now it's not usable.

@DATA COMMANDER: i know a lot of things are f....d up in current world and they will forever be probably. The point is to get everything as good as it can be for everyone. Not everyone think this way and that's a big problem :) People stupidity, malice and greed (this mainly those in up of the pyramid) make it all difficult. Currently my country will lack on money for future pensions. Sick, but true.


Btw. meanwhile:

http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-small-lin-2k.png

Bad luck or less miners ? I think those who invested in computers already stopped investing more because of BTC exchange rate stop.

You don't even need to go to the trouble of creating your own new blockchain, there are plenty of startups already that you can buy into dirt cheap. In fact if you want to spread to a lot of people without costing them a lot and without the price growing so fast that within a very short time people are making this same complaint about early adopters having got it too cheap you should maybe even *try* to keep people from thinking it is going to be huge, going to make a fortune and so on.

In fact it might be best to try to come up with some method or approach that can somehow keep them from going up in price until all 21 million of them have been issued. Maybe tell people hey they are plenty more still coming, each day there are more so don't pay higher price for old ones, just wait a while for more new ones to be made or maybe even (depending on how exactly they are actually minted) participate in the minting process to make your own.

This can be done several times, so that if you think there might be more than 21 million people who might want one you can start making a new blockchain of another 21 million coins once the first 21 million are in circulation and there are still late adopters who would prefer a new coin costing only one of something instead of buying one of the already fully issued previous 21 million for more then one of something.

This might even be able to work like normal coins where you have different types trading at different values.

If you can clearly express all of the characteristics you are looking for in what the code should actually do in a blockchain you would like to buy into we can look over all the ones already out there to see if any of them match your criteria and if not then quite likely someone can easily start one that does match your criteria.

How much wealth exactly are you thinking of putting into whichever one does work the way you would like it to work?

-MarkM-

It seems like people like this have been cropping up since bitcoin began.  I remember a year ago having almost the exact same discussion with someone (even back then, when bitcoins were just barely worth more than the electricity it took to mint them, and everything was done on the CPU's and kilahashes.)

They all have a few similar features.

1) Very Poor English.  I think this leads to a lot of friction for them learning about how the system ACTUALLY works, for communicating their ideas well, or from considering the points that people rebuttle with.

2) A fundemental misunderstanding of economics/bitcoin.  "mining" being a scam?  The Mining is what holds the whole system together, what makes it cryptographically secure and worthwhile to begin with.  Maybe if you understood the whitepaper, or read a bit of the code, or took 30 seconds to think about WHY these choices were made, you'd understand that.

3) An unending, unquavering, unpersuadable attitude towards "the bitcoin doomsday" or "the Great Unjustice".

I wonder if Bitcoin, due to it's complicated nature, is doomed to be perpetually fraught with these "Throughput"s?  (Have a read of http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=547.0 for a good laugh.)

LOL as opposed to the current system where only virtuous, deserving people have fantastic wealth.  Seriously, the guys who cooked up the way to beat the violent monopolists who hold the world as slaves deserve to be fabulously wealthy. They took the early risks. They bought pizzas for what may eventually be billions of dollars. they wrote code without getting paid. You seem to want to compare Bitworld to some mythical ideal utopia instead of the real world or a realistic alternative. Every system has problems and bitworld is not different, but rewarding revolutionaries for giving us freedom is a feature, not a bug.

+1, Amen

Regarding early adopter rewards, I think if Bitcoin ever becomes big on the scale being discussed here, the coins early adopters have accumulated will have been spread out considerably. Consider the hypothetical owner of 1% of all Bitcoin - what will they do with that money? Bitcoin, like all other money, only has value insofar as  you can exchange it for something. Currently anyone holding, say, 200,000 BTC is only hypothetically a USD millionaire. Trying to sell even a few thousand BTC will move the market significantly. The same will continue to apply in the future. No-one with 1% of Bitcoin could actually swing that much wealth around without seriously moving the market at the same time. In effect, such a person could spend smaller amounts at will, but try to hire an army of workers or build new pyramids, and they'll find their (and everyone else's) buying power rather seriously diminished.

tl;dr:
If you hoard large amounts of a resource and the market develops without those resources in circulation, you can't expect to be able to dump your hoard and not see a large drop in prices of said resource. Hoards are theoretical wealth.

@markm - i am not going to start my own block chain - it's just an idea where Satoshi (he is for sure here, i don't think he just went away from project of his life) can look at. However if you know any other systems RUNNING (or at least considered with pointed features) i would like to take a look:)

@Quantumplation - for your information i work in IT and i UNDERSTAND how the system works, i am just not a good writer. Technical side is not a problem and i NEVER considered mining here as scam. Read more carefully please, or ask if i wrote that in not understandable way. Mining will be always good to keep system working, i am just considering new start after 10 years which won't happen. (current mining IS unfair for late adopters BUT in future will work good to keep system secure, just like now. The problem i considered is that it can be fair start to everyone after 10 years with proper initial distribution also with mining to keep system working)
And please don't compare me to others until you read whole topic.

3) 'An unending, unquavering, unpersuadable attitude towards "the bitcoin doomsday" or "the Great Unjustice"'. -  no one says it will be forever unjust, i am just talking about early adopters which will gain a lot of human resources for small portion of work. BUT considering @rebuilder post i think if they will put all btcs within one month not just one hit then it will be all fine FOR SYSTEM, but still they will earn A LOT :) OK - let them be super rich, i just wan't to see how far bitcoin moves with everything with the way it's built.

Btw. if you do speak in English so good why i can't translate "unquavering" and "unpersuadable"? I understand what you mean, but google translator and other translators miss these words ; )
same stiches to "due to it's complicated nature" that should be "due to ITS complicated nature". You ALSO have deficiences in english. That was just one sentece i checked.

@billyjoeallen  - i totally agree , just looking for any system problems that can crack it in future and for improvements which won't happen probably :)

Nice way to backtrack.

As for your argument against my English, the point of language is to communicate.  If my sentences communicate my ideas cogently and concisely, then I consider it to be good English.  Excessive perfection of grammar and spelling is only something for uptight literature snobs to occupy themselves with.  You, however, are having difficulty both communicating your ideas and understanding the points that everyone else in this forum puts forward.  THAT is poor English, not misconjugating a negative gerund or misplacing an apostrophe at 3:30am. ;)

"...i am just talking about early adopters which will gain a lot of human resources for small portion of work."

you really need to try and get your head around the idea that there is no difference at all between risk, and work.

i'm not an early adopter (as you seem to understand it - in a year i suppose i will be considered as such).  but i wish that all those who've been accumulating Bitcoin, buying and selling using Bitcoin, and turning it into something real - get filthy stinking rich.  richer than i can even conceive of.

and i'm happy with what i've got and what i'm getting, because that's what i've earned - it is therefore what i deserve.

"Mining is just an good advertisement for the network. 'MONEY for NOTHING' ? that's how 90% of the miners work. " - watch for quotation in my sentence here. 'MONEY for NOTHING' was sentence about HOW a lot of miners think about whole network. I personally know some of those and they still don't get that they are finding specific, meeting all requirements hashes. It's just system with free $s for them for running computer 24/7. That's perfect advertisement for whole network, but for late adopters it can be just pyramid scheme(early adopters will get a lot of cash but as topic growth i am changing my mind in this, as they will get a lot for being INVESTORS and early promoters investing cash in something worthless - and that's good - that's why we talk here, right? But many people will still think like i did and will never get the techincal idea of bitcoins and mining and THAT'S REALLY BAD. Let's just have hope miners will always get their cash back and system will grow in time).

And believe me - not only I have same thoughts about this, that's why i am talking about bitcoin 2.0 which can better distribute all coins at start, but probably will never exist, it's just SICK idea that is an utopia version of Bitcoin.


Finalizing all, as that's what i wrote probably will never exist, it's just idea, thought, couple of sentences on this forum:
I will be really happy if Bitcoin will at least replace all centralized systems like Paypal, Moneybookers.  As an alternative system it can be really good on internet, but replacing real currencies will be just too hard for Bitcoin. My idea was to replace currencies around the world after 10 or more years, but let Bitcoin spread first and then we will see what happens next. :))

The blockchain with the highest difficulty should be valued the most.  As the blockchain with the highest difficulty has the resources to take over any other blockchain and undermine its algorithm instantly - having more than 50% of the combined processing power.

veddy veddy nize ya

You guys forgetting that ATM we all are early adopters. BTC is only $5 and still very small amount of ppl even heard about bitcoin.

To the OP: if you think that in 10 years bitcoin will be worth $10,000, whats stopping you from buying as many bitcoins as you possibly can? Dont you wanna be early adopter too?

And stop already about this stupid 1% inflation idea. Dou you really want your savings to be worth half as much in 70 years? Cuz i dont.

No. No. No. We aren't turning into SC.

OP another SolidCoin / MicroCrash sockpuppet? -.-

Hell NO ! Most investors do not work in the companies they invest in. Early adopters did the same, they invested in buying some bitcoins while risking their money.
Bitcoin makes no promises: it cannot be a Ponzi. In a Ponzi, you buy in with a promise to cash out at a higher rate: not even remotely resembling bitcoin's bootstrap strategy.

If Bitcoin is not a Ponzi, there are a number of actual Ponzi in the real world, notably many retirement pension schemes.
It's therefore convenient for lobbyist to focus the attention on an emerging innovative system rather than explore the murky waters of incumbent systems.

Besides the whole rediculous ponzi idea.
The users buying BTC @ 10.000 USD can still spend that bitcoin for an equal amount of goods and services. So, there's no loss for anyone using BTC as money. Only a high risk of loss or profit if you use it as an early investment.
Also, bare in mind that IF those people become wealthy they did do something for it. They started a revolutionary global 'free' currency.