Bitcoin Forum

Treazant is for folks who prefer for the Bitcoin reward to stay constant forever. Block chain confirmations will resume once ASIC hardware starts to arrive. The client only requires a few very trivial modifications to work. The one piece of the puzzle which would be useful, but is not required, is functionality to export wallets from Bitcoin and import them to Treazant and vice versa. If you haven't sent any outgoing transactions after the reward halving yesterday, then a simple copy and paste backup and restore should work fine. Minor modifications to accommodate the larger supply of currency will occur at block 420,000 and as needed at each subsequent 210,000 blocks.

Finally, bitcoin without all the supply side economic incentives

Actually it has existed for a long long time already, it is called groupcoin.

DeVCoin is similar, but uses coins 1/1000 the size because some people used to be really worried about having to move the decimal so devcoin created it already moved by three places from the start.

-MarkM-

Of course the idea of constant generation is already old. What's new here is a block-chain forking effort, aka revolt against the bitcoin protocol.

However in order to organize a revolt against the protocol, it's best not to totally rename the coin and post only in altcoin forum. I think it might have gained some minor support if op named it 'bitcoin unlimited' and posted the plan a month ago in the general forum instead.

209,999 blocks have already been pre-mined. If you had bitcoins before the reward split and if you haven't thrown away your wallet, then you have treazants.

Edit: Party's over. It was fun while it lasted. It just occurred to me that transactions on the bitcoin block chain could be rebroadcast on the treazant block chain not only by the sender, but by anyone. And the opposite is also true, treazants produced before the block chain split which are spent after the split, could be rebroadcast on the bitcoin block chain. This wouldn't always be true, eventually divergent confirmation paths would stop the double receiving, but only after much potential harm. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Thanks for all your support. We had a good run. :D

Edit 2: It could still work if the encryption method was changed or a salt was added at and after block 210,000. Doing so would be good practice in case Bitcoin were ever close to being compromised in the distant future.

He wanted to create a permanent fork of bitcoin that did not reduce the block reward and allowed people to keep their current bitcoin holdings while not usurping the current main chain....

Just a thought/suggestion, this could be relatively simple in a new *coin if you feel that passionately about it.  Solidcoin2 somehow figured out a way to take the block chain and "compress" the current holdings from the Solidcoin1 chain.  Also Devcoin uses the same address format as bitcoin thus the private keys in both work for either but you can't send dvc to btc or vice versa (as far as I understand it)....  You could combine the 2 concepts in your new *coin .... just pick a better name for it :-)

Incidentally this has the advantage that you can compress at the last block before the halving and the wallet conversions etc. should be easier I would think... since that is essentially a snap shot which will be unaffected by transactions after, the users of the new coin should just have to import their private key(s) they had at the time of that block.

I find it strange that nobody did it.

Perhaps difficulty is the main barrier. I doubt that revolt would work unless difficulty is reset OR major mining pool joins revolt.

Also people are probably too loyal to bitcoin, which is spooky. (Cryptocurrency should work even if majority isn't loyal, right?)

Heh, if people are so altruistic that they don't even bother to attack than PoS-based coins like PPC can work too.

Why does it bother you? :)


Perhaps you should make two chains: one with bitcoin-compatible transactions and another with incompatible. Let's see which one wins!

Actually from what he wrote in edit it is apparent that he wants to make a separate currency "initialized" from bitcoin.

Difference between a fork and a separate currency is that spending money in fork will also spend it on bitcoin network, however spending separate currency won't affect your bitcoin wallet.

Another shitcoin born. Congratulations! Best of luck with this.

Cool idea. Definitely following this one.

A bunch of coins have had fixed rewards that never changed as I recall. Didn't make a difference. All dead.

Oh I just read other posts. Neutered idea. But interesting.

Now that I've had some time to think about it, the solution which I mentioned should be pretty simple to implement and I will definitely have it done before I can get my hands on ASIC hardware. When the client starts up, if there is a Bitcoin wallet, it will open the wallet in read-only mode and for each of the Bitcoin addresses it will generate a new public/private key pair address first using a yet to be determined cryptographic algorithm, which may either be the same ECDSA algorithm that Bitcoin uses or a different cryptographic algorithm that will produce the same length address and then afterwards it will sign the transaction again using the original Bitcoin private key. The order is critical to guarantee that when the currency is eventually sent, the transactions will not be incompatible with Bitcoin. Afterwards the client could either continue to use twice signed addresses or just use single signed addresses. Please let me know if you have a recommendation for which cryptographic algorithm I should use or if you know or if you can think of a more elegant solution. Thanks!

I proposed this in the past and there was an overwhelming consensus that there is no demand for it.

I learned that the 21 million limit is a HIGHLY VALUED feature and that Bitcoin without it is far less appealing.  I gave up.  Good luck with this.

"Inflatacoin?" I still like the idea :)

Only limited resources have value. Infinite resources worth nothing.


Inflatacoin FTW

Here's your homework: suppose 50 coins are mined each block, forever.

What is inflation for year x?

The inflation actually tends to zero, and in concept, I like that, which is why I had once proposed it.  That coin could be created today, and it may very well be a "better" coin.  But it won't get popular, and won't get adopted.

What I had underestimated at the time I first proposed it was that the simple notion of "There Will Never Be More Than 21,000,000 Bitcoins" is such an important part of the appeal.  It is far more attractive than "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much".

Yes, it's much more attractive to Austrian/libertarian types who cannot do the math.

However, I think that that community is relevant only for bootstrapping. Once people will get familiar with cryptocurrency concept it will be adopted by people who really don't give a fuck, they just want reasonable stable exchange rate.

And at that point things like security, scalability, cost of transactions, exchange rate stability and features would matter more than pseudo-Austrian appeal. In theory, at least.

So I believe other currencies do have a chance. Bitcoin is great for long-term store of value, but people might choose something else for day-to-day transactions.

Constant generation rate means that:

• there is less speculation; get-rich-quick and early-adopter bonus largely do not work in this case
• fees can be close to zero because miners are paid out of generation
• there is no reward-halving shock and uncertainty
• no theoretic woes like accidentally discovered wallet makes you richest person on planet

So I'd rather bet on it.

It will die like tenebrix and fairbrix, there's a reason why litecoin was the scrypt chain that won.

Well, currently get-rich-quick is the strongest motivation.

But perhaps a bit later people will care more about other features.

Obviously it takes more than releasing another shitbrix currency, there needs to be a real innovation.

Also, devcoin is more-or-less alive even though it uses constant generation.

It's also much more attractive to the Austrian/libertarian types who can do the math, which is most of us.  As others have mentioned, you're free to fork the code and do your best with it; and no one will care if you take some actions to prevent your alternate currency from interfering with the Bitcoin network, and you call it something different.  Yet, this has already been tried many times, and every time has failed.  That's not because everyone but you is short sighted, either.

Both GRouPcoin and DeVCoin keep generating coins forever, and that makes people think of them when looking for something to borrow-to-spend when they don't want to spend their collateral (their collateral being, ideally, coins/stuff that tends to appreciate in value).

The "only so many units ever" feature is indeed very powerful though, which is why more and more community-currency startups have been deciding ahead of time exactly how many units of their community's currency there will ever be. There are people out there that like deflating currencies, so I guess communities are maybe looking to appeal to such people by setting up their currency in a way they hope will help make it a deflating currency. Maybe they just like the idea of being one of the currencies people use as collateral/reserves more than being one of the currencies people borrow-to-spend.

-MarkM-

My observations say otherwise.


Time haven't come yet, my friend. Also it needs features which Bitcoin doesn't have, not just another generation parameters.

Also Devcoin is more-or-less alive, so it can work, apparently.

Really, why do you presume this?  What advantage would your unlimited version of Bitcoin improve upon the usability of day-to-day transactions over Bitcoin itself?  And what would prevent Bitcoin from incorporating that improvement?  The storage of value factor is an important feature for an exchange system, without it Bitcoin would just be another dollar substitute.

I already mentioned all the desired features.


Largely inertia. People do not want to lose their savings due to new features being implemented.

But also constant generation can subsidize transaction costs.


Sure, but we just need reasonably stable value, not constantly increasing one.

Such as?

Features that Bitcoin can't replicate?

Depends upon your intended meaning of "work".  Yes, Devcoin still functions and they can be aquired; but that is only half the problem.  If there are no vendors willing to accept them, what good does it do?  I was here when the same argument applied to Bitcoin, but at that time there was no crypto-currency market at all.  Bitcoin carved out it's own niche, and it was a big one.  Now bitcoin has the first to market advantage in a market it created.  The only way another currency can overcome that, and the network effect that Bitcoin already has, is to offer a clear and distinct consumer advantage over Bitcoin that cannot be replicated easily by Bitcoin proper, or it needs to find another unfilled niche; such as Namecoin.  Limitless inflation, even that controlled by a predictable pattern, is not clearly in the advantage of consumers; but Bitcoin's deflationary nature (assuming that it works) clearly is.

Are you talking about this?


Because if you are, I wouldn't call those features.  I'd call those unsupported assumptions.

Now that is plausible, but I believe that if your innovations have a clear advantage, the Bitcoin developers would make a point of stealing the idea.


Of course, to a point.  But it does that through an inflation tax upon the entire currency base.  Thus it's not usage based, and thus you can't expect that overlay networks would develop to avoid such transactions.  If your idea succeeded, it would bear the brunt of the entire marketplace forever.  That is not expected for Bitcoin.


Your idea doesn't offer stability.  The voltility in the exchange rate has much less to do with it's generation rate and much more to do with it's relative demand.  There are also the floating values of the many other national currencies that your currency would have to exchange with.  If you could peg your coin to some baseline, such as a national currency, you would have much less voltility due to the inertia that the backing brought with it, but then you couldn't have a predictable inflation rate.  And I can't even imagine how such a peg could safely work.

Furthermore, Bitcoin's own inflation rate is currently about 12.5% annually and falling very slowly.  In another year the inflation rate will only be down to about 11% annually.  So the argument in favor of a perpetually inflating crypto-currency, even if it has merit, still shouldn't matter at least until Bitcoin's own inflation rate is below the rate that most fiat currencies target, of around 2% annually.  Even at the next halving in four more years we'd still be at about a 4% annual inflation rate.  We won't cross below the 2% mark for at least another seven years, as the inflation rate at the third halving will be about 1.7%.

Bitcoin won't actually be truely deflationary within my expected lifetime.

So ... are you selling all your Bitcoins for Treazant/Inflatiacoin?

this type of chain can be much more value by main stream economists since there are allot to talk that a currency should have fixed supply by law, the 21 million limit is valued by the current users is imposible to know what the other users will value

You have this wrong. What is attractive is the status quo. If we had started with "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much", then everyone would be loyal to that instead.

No, they would not. Check the hard-fork wishlist. Anything that is too big a change is off the table. Simply because it is too big a change.

In fact, if you propose stuff that is a bit too clever, the devs are happy to use libel to undermine your credibility.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127634.msg1357552#msg1357552 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127634.msg1357552#msg1357552)

Most people are happy to turn to the devs to think for them.

The name of the coin sounds too much like Treason.  I think that could be a problem.

What name could be better for attracting AnCaps?

Dude, that never was a good idea.  Just because you think it was a bit too clever, doesn't make it so.  I said clear advantage, to the consumer.  If it's not a clear advantage to the consumer, they aren't going to prefer it enough to overcome Bitcoin's network effect & first to market advantages; no matter how technically superior that you might believe it is.

Maybe, but only because it attracted a completely different type of early adopter,willing to put his own money and work to great risk for an idea that he believed in.  I think that would have been much less likely with "less inflation than most fiat currencies, forever!" than "never more than 21 million!".  But I suppose we will never know, will we?

I think that there might be something lost in translation here.

Your views are beside the point. You don't libel someone if you don't think they are a threat to you. It was not me who judged my ideas to be a bit too clever. And it was not you either.

This kind of coin will never make it because it will not be able to achieve a critical mass.

For current bitcoin holders it would be a disadvantage as it would potentially devalue their coins.

From an inflationary point of view the difference to bitcoin is mostly psychological (and in time scale).

I dunno. I'd say a coin like this has far better chances than bitcoin in the long-run. Particularly if the algorithm is swapped out as in scrypt.

LOL, no. I mean that if I'll ever going to start an alt-chain, it will likely have constant generation or something like that.

There is a thing called "destructive fees", i.e. fees do not go to miners, they simply disappear. Destruction should cancel generation in theory.

How is it better then? It's more flexible. Miners do not have to charge fees to earn their living, instead they can affect activity. E.g. too many transactions -> larger fees -> more money is lost -> cost of money goes up -> overheating of economy is cancelled.


Bitcoin volatility is caused by investors who buy bitcoins believing that they are going to appreciate in future.

This simply wouldn't be the case with inflationary currency, people will only buy it to use it.


For example: Colored coins allow private companies to make their private currencies and peg them via open market operations. Of course, such currency is as reliable as backing company.

What you are suggesting has been discussed at length before, and no one has been able to do these in a mathmatically consistant manner without also breaking anomininity.  Something else the community values.

this means I can double-spend my bitcoins on both chains, treazant and bitcoin?

The Keyn.

This is interesting. From a theoretical point of view the ever-decreasing inflation of Treazant isn't really that different from the 0 inflation of bitcoin.

The differences really are in "adoptability":

• bitcoins capped supply is ("there will never be more than 21 mio") is a great incentive for early adopters and gold-bugs. Bitcoin might not have gotten off the ground without this.
• treazants inflation is a good argument against the "early adopter unfairness"-accusation (while early adopter reward is really still high)

I think it's not the right time to make this change, though. It's too early.

There might, however, be a point in time at which it might be favorable for such a fork. Say we do this at block 630,000 and fork there keeping reward at 12.5 TZN (doing the switch of old keys as suggested). I could imagine even old-time bitcoin adopters jumping on the fork if it seems like the not-yet-tapped public shows a higher willingness to adopt the fork than bitcoin. They wouldn't loose that much wealth in the short run and if it boils down to: mass-adoption or not, I can see the idea gaining traction.

What exactly are you talking about here? My guess is that you don't know, but I'm not sure.

I agree with killerstorm completely here.

I think it is more reasonable to expand the money supply at a rate slightly lower than Switzerland (5-6% a year). With 4% money supply expansion per year, I could see PoW as completely sustainable in the long-term. It might even be justifiable as an adoption subsidy / marketing gimmick. Especially if you could find an algorithm favoring CPUs.

This would have only weak appeal to Austrians (Swiss Franc > US Dollar), but would still be a sane design choice.

Also, destroying fees is a good idea. Fees open up all kinds of weird bribery possibilities that are best left closed.

However, if you are making a crypto-currency, you are kind of stuck with the community as it is now (Austrian/libertarian types who can't do math). Sadly, it may be best to make something that appeals to them even if it doesn't make sense from a sensible person's perspective.

we should not stick to a crypto only need need diversity the more the better and if some have a special feature much much better like name coin has one, this has no reward hawing and there are many more features that can be put in a coin, dev should not stop at feature like bitcoins have   

It is different from miner compensation point of view.


Early adopter incentive isn't that much different at start. For example, after 12 years we talk about 18.37M Bitcoins vs 31.5M "inflatacoins", so Bitcoins are only 71% more valuable.

After 20 years Bitcoins are 2.6 times more valuable.

If we are talking about return on investment with many zeros in it (e.g. buying bitcoins in October 2009 would give you ~16000 ROI now), 2x difference does not mean anything.

So I'd say early adopters would get absolutely insane profit in any case, it's just that finite money supply has religious meaning for some people.

(OK, we might say that with finite money supply "early adopter" period lasts longer. But we cannot really estimate it.)

Merged mining is already extending the early adopter period massively in effect, since anyone interested  in picking up something dirt cheap that could go up in value by orders of magnitude over a few years can still pick up merged mined coins of various kinds dirt cheap due to most miners still not bothering to pick them up.

The early adopter period could have been extended even longer by not creating exchanges for new coins until a couple of years down the line, or maybe even not until they reached their first reward-halving, so that they would remain under the radar quiet little windfalls for more people longer before the masses finally realise just how much they all actually add up to.

Bitcoins themselves are shamefully undervalued, but you can get a whole lot more namecoins for the same investment and they are probably even more undervalued than bitcoins, which makes them still an amazing early adopter opportunity even after all this time. They do have exchanges though so the masses maybe do realise they are at least worth something; the best opportunities would be coins without exchanges, if you are mining those you will be hoping no exchange opens up for them until a few reward-halvings down the line so you can enjoy low difficulty mining as many years as you can...

-MarkM-

Isn't the algorithm more or less irrelevant beyond the initial bootstrapping, since asics can ultimately be developed for any application? Of course, the apparent difficulty of producing such hardware, even amidst considerable financial incentive, is noteworthy.

better idea: wait for treazant to come up and get an exchange, dump ur "trezant/bincoin" from the past to real bitcoins :D

theres a couple of options for the transition:

• 1.) do nothing special: not a good idea: bitcoins will remain on bitcoin chain and transaction are compatible and cross-broadcastable => not really an option
• 2.) convert wallet to new keys: this separates bitcoins and avoids cross-broadcastability. Owners of bitcoins will just keep the bitcoins on the bitcoin chain and "receive" the same amount of Treazant in Treazant chain.
• 3.) Make new logic in Treazant-chain (that uses the bitcoin chain also): bitcoins (pre block x) have to be spent to special address ("0") on the bitcoin chain and sent to a new key on the treazant chain. This forces bitcoin-owners to decide how many coins to "convert" to treazant. This will reduce the supply of bitcoins.

What would the implications of that last idea be?

https://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/GRouPcoin/groupcoin-22-Aug-2012.tgz

-MarkM-

That java thing is a play-by-email client that is currently mostly useful as a test of an installer program system that claims to build on linux an installer for windows. you are about the second or third person to report that apparently it does not seem to actually work on windows afterall. I have no idea why it does not work, it is a pretty famous cross-system installer-builder system. I am not even sure why an installer is even needed, I thought the whole damn point about java is it runs on any system. Maybe though it is meant to help with cases where someone packages u p some special graphics stuff or something that needs direct access to hardware thus gets specific to whether its 32 bit or 64 bit and exactly what kind of graphics card it is or something.

Basically if the installer thing doesn't actually work maybe just run the jar, a play by email tool doesn't seem like it ought to be doing anything that would be hardware-specific.

But the play by email thing also isn't going to bring in any coins currently, because the email address it sends the orders to is only looked at once a month or few months since each time I do look on the offhand chance someone actually did try the thing I see no emails there.

Since the Moneychanger GUI for Open Transactions is java, and they want an installer for windows, I made a new build of the thing so they could try my build of it and also of course the source code is there too so they can build it themselves and maybe build it better than I did.

Its a pain not being able to compile, isn't it? I remember when the Mac first came out, it was unprogrammable too, they wanted like $800 extra for BASIC, that computers normally came with. It was basically just a glorified etch-a-sketch, I was disgusted.

-MarkM-

I thought of a simpler way to force divergent balances to be incompatible while still retaining transaction protocol compatibility. Treazant will first copy the wallet and synchronize to block 109,999 without transmitting transactions. For each public/private key pair address that contains bitcoins, two new public/private keys will be generated. Both Bitcoin and Treazant will get a copy of both new addresses, but the treazants and bitcoins will be sent to opposite addresses. Neither the kludgy double signing idea nor the alternative encryption idea will be used.

Yes, you will be able to double spend Bitcoins/Treazants which you had before the first Bitcoin four year reward halving occurred at block 210,000. Don't delete your transaction history from when the Bitcoin reward halving occurred and I'll let everyone know when treazants are usable and worth more than nothing.