When distribution ends the network is still guarded by an algorithm, this is the only way to keep money away from politics.
No, the network is guarded by how expensive it is to attack it. Algorithm alone does nothing, there's a ton of altcoin got attacked to death, and they uses the exact same algorithm as Bitcoin. I will put it another way. The network is guarded by the amount of competition, which in turn is judged by the algorithm. Yes, coins that have little relevance or importance are easy to attack, but that's not the point. Everything can be attacked. What I'm sayng is that humans are more prone to that than an open algo. The past 5 years has shown, the natural equilibrium is reached with an annual PoW mining expense of 10% fiat value of Bitcoin market cap.
Therefore, investors/stakeholders of Bitcoin will pay a 10% tax in fiat value on their Bitcoin holdings, perpetually.
Now of course there are other factors affecting the price, such as new money coming in, or existing money leaving the eco-system. It's up to the investor/stakeholder to decide whether inflow of new money will offset the 10% mining tax.
There is no tax, just a distribution of coins. If 10% of new coins being emitted per year, then rougly the same amount of money will be spent mining them. The same goes for 5%, 2% of the market cap and so on. Money in, money out - no tax! |
|
|
|
Ok, what I don't understand is why so many people only own a fraction of a bitcoin - why not buy a whole bitcoin now while the price is so low? If you're an enthusiast enough to be on bitcointalk - you should have at least 5 bitcoin. Or else you don't really believe it will go anywhere.
OMG!! You're so smart. Now I understand, why all those people in Africa and other places around the world are dying of hunger. They don't believe in Food!! Stupid me, always thought that they couldn't afford it. You twisted it very well, twister. But you're both right about the way reality works. Humanity got it all backwards. Believing is Seeing. Not the other way around. No kidding. |
|
|
|
...
Why would you call emission rate a tax? When the block reward was 50 coins the inflation was higher than 10% per year, it gets lower and lower with every new halving. Bitcoin was designed to distribute coins over the course of several decades on a permission-less basis. All coins (before they are mined) are guarded by an algorithm, as opposed to any form of private money (including fiat) guarded by a group of people. It might be cheaper to maintain an electronic money system, where people are at the center of its security model, but you will get all the downsides of that as well. It has nothing to do with inflation rate, the 10% expense is on the USD value of the market cap. If the PoW mining expense had anything to do with coin distribution, then what happens when coins are all distributed? Bitcoin network suddenly has no hash rates? When distribution ends the network is still guarded by an algorithm, this is the only way to keep money away from politics. ^
I think he means "distributed to miners." More than 10% a year, but still...
When all the coins are distributed, inflation won't pay for mining any longer--tx fees will. How well that works out without being outrageously pricey per tx remains to be seen.
Correct. |
|
|
|
2009-2013 has all been good years, precisely because all the new money coming in, plus Bitcoin marketcap was tiny back then, so the 10% of something tiny, is still tiny, new money easily overwhelmed the 10% PoW mining tax.
At the end of 2013, Bitcoin marketcap went up big time. Now 10% is not so tiny, it's a pretty large amount of money. Therefore 2014 new money was not able to balance out the 10% PoW mining tax, and we are seeing Bitcoin going down in value.
Why would you call emission rate a tax? When the block reward was 50 coins the inflation was higher than 10% per year, it gets lower and lower with every new halving. Bitcoin was designed to distribute coins over the course of several decades on a permission-less basis. All coins (before they are mined) are guarded by an algorithm, as opposed to any form of private money (including fiat) guarded by a group of people. It might be cheaper to maintain an electronic money system, where people are at the center of its security model, but you will get all the downsides of that as well. |
|
|
|
Now that MSFT is onto it, we are one step closer to the new "PoWers that BTC"
and yet the price remains rocket free. That's ok. We need both - growing adoption and affordable price. I wouldn't expect much of a price action before scalability upgrade next year. Maybe denomination to a smaller unit at the same time would help reduce psychological barrier to entry. |
|
|
|
|
Now that MSFT is onto it, we are one step closer to the new "PoWers that BTC"
|
|
|
|
People often forget, that if they did something different in the past, they would be observing an alternative version of the future, where many things could be different. So if you held some NXT longer, you might have shifted yourself into a parallel reality, where NXT went nowhere. The way events have unfolded is the way the Universe teases you, plays with you. If you made profit from an investment, then by all means it is a positive outcome, not a biggest mistake. Life is a game, play it, see what you get  |
|
|
|
3 years ago I heard about Bitcoin for the first time, but I got into it quite a bit later. What puzzles me though, is that exactly 3 years ago Bitcoin ended its bear run after reaching 1 dollar parity, it was a second wave before the big bang to 32$. If you look at the logarithmic all time graph in the present ( http://blockchained.com), then you'll see the end of the bear run after reaching 1k$ parity and the preparation for the next big bang. Like 3 years ago it was a second wave and the shapes are quite similar, only stretched along the time axis. History repeats itself. Time fractals anyone? |
|
|
|
How about we define what it actually means to "Create" before judging about "Creationism".
If we have a word for it, it must mean something, right?
People often ask for the evidence of God.
If we define God as an ultimate Creator,
then any evidence of creation would be the evidence of God, right?
Now, how about we all spend 5 minutes to create a little plane out of peace of paper,
to demonstrate to ourselves the evidence of God.
God is not out there, it's inside.
In this topic we are discussing fundamental Christian creationism, the 6000 year Earth, Adam and Eve, flood, that stuff, just read Bible's first book. Ok, got it. I've always had little doubt that the story in the Bible was manipulated, so I never went as far as to actually read it |
|
|
|
Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.
Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!
Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.
The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.
1) Creationism is a theory. Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc. Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about. But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies? 3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda). 4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid. Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes. I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable. I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda. Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes. How about we define what it actually means to "Create" before judging about "Creationism". If we have a word for it, it must mean something, right? People often ask for the evidence of God. If we define God as an ultimate Creator, then any evidence of creation would be the evidence of God, right? Now, how about we all spend 5 minutes to create a little plane out of peace of paper, to demonstrate to ourselves the evidence of God. God is not out there, it's inside. |
|
|
|
Every "good and perfect gift" comes from God and the world was good before sin entered it. I see the world with that perspective.
Ever wonder that what is good to me isn't necessarily good to you and vice-versa? Two Godly persons can be one thanking God and the other blaming the Devil over the very same event. Perfection never existed, good doesn't exist without evil. It would seem that "good" and "evil" (in a sense of "positive" and "negative" or even "creative" and "destructive") must exist for there to be one important third component - a choice. For there to be a choice those two opposites need to be equal in size, but then the paradox is, that having a choice tilts the table towards "positive" because having a choice is a "good" thing. Thus choice is as far as creation can go in terms of growing its destructive part. Once the two parts are equal, the choice is born and the whole thing becomes again slightly more positive. It would oscillate around this boundary indefinitely. To the question of where diseases come from, it becomes apparent, that they are simply a reflection of the choices between "creative" and "destructive" made along the way. The paradox is essential to understanding our existence, because that's the thing that sets everything in motion. As paradox cannot settle either way, it must oscillate indefinitely and that makes it a perpetual push-pull engine of creation. That is why the nature of existence is vibratory, every little particle out there is always in motion. The whole Universe oscillates around the fringe of the paradox and what you see around you is a shape of that fringe. |
|
|
|
It might be easier to wrap one's mind around AI, when looked from the perspective of primacy of consciousness. In this model nothing can create consciousness, but consciousness can create anything, including different kinds of masks, through which it can express itself. If human brain (one kind of mask) is a receiver of consciousness, so can be a technological device (another kind of mask), built specifically to be sensitive enough for already existing consciousness to tap into. Here is some more insight on the topic: "AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s |
|
|
|
Let me know how long this model will last:
"Every single adult member receives a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on. The only condition is citizenship and/or residency.
You get the basic income whether or not you’re employed, any wages you earn are additional."
When my country will send around 1 million gypsy your way.
There are people in villages near my town who refuse to work for 500 euros because they can get half that amount from social welfare and do nothing. And to be sure they get that they make around 5-8 kids /generation.
It would take a small percent of population to engineer and operate the machinery/robots, that would produce most of the things that society needs. Add to this almost free and clean energy sources and you will understand that "you need to work to survive" mantra will soon fade away. Or do you suggest that most of the human population needs to die in poverty, while robots do all the job? Let me tell you this , I am not racist , but living here I have to see the facts clearly... The gypsy population exploded , more than doubling in the last 15 years. They all live on social welfare in the best case scenario , the worst is.... (people living in western Europe have found out). This guaranteed minimum wage has been exploited so much that we end up paying the same amount for those people compared to all retirement funds. And the balance is going down by the minute. People have begun to get lazy , during the heavy rainfall and snow the soldiers tried to unblock the roads and get people out of their houses while the already rescued neighbors stand by with a bottle of alcohol and joke around. I saw this failing so bad in my country , and you westerners will see it also. Wait till you get hit by a wave of Romanians and Bulgarians. I see that these things might not have worked in the past, but eventually they will work. It's not about arbitrary choice of one ideology over another, it's just going to be a natural transition process and Bitcoin will play an important role in it. The profit motive will start to fade away slowly, as people realize that they don't have to pay any interest on the money they use. People will see more value in contributing to their society, than turning a quick buck to be on time paying interest on their debt. We are a moving away from "compete for survival" game
more towards "cooperate for prosperity" kinda game.
The world you imagine requires forced labor and mass extermination. How long before you are sterilizing people you don't like because there isn't enough to go around? I'll take productive competition thank you very much. Quite the opposite. It is in the current model that you are forced to work to survive and with the advent of new tech most of the jobs will become obsolete leading to mass poverty and eventual extermination. So the transition to the new model will be natural, as it would make more and more sense as we go along with it. I see human colonies on Mars in a decade or so... and you are talking about "not having enough for everyone", come on! |
|
|
|
Let me know how long this model will last:
"Every single adult member receives a weekly payment from the state, which is enough to live comfortably on. The only condition is citizenship and/or residency.
You get the basic income whether or not you’re employed, any wages you earn are additional."
When my country will send around 1 million gypsy your way.
There are people in villages near my town who refuse to work for 500 euros because they can get half that amount from social welfare and do nothing. And to be sure they get that they make around 5-8 kids /generation.
It would take a small percent of population to engineer and operate the machinery/robots, that would produce most of the things that society needs. Add to this almost free and clean energy sources and you will understand that "you need to work to survive" mantra will soon fade away. Or do you suggest that most of the human population needs to die in poverty, while robots do all the job? |
|
|
|
|
I think it's a good news.
We are a moving away from "compete for survival" game
more towards "cooperate for prosperity" kinda game.
ET races have always wondered "why do you have to pay to live on your own planet?".
Now we start seeing the problem with that as well.
|
|
|
|
Even though "mills" might seem more logical, I like the sound of "bits" better. It's like you break the whole coin into bits |
|
|
|
governments CANNOT regulate bitcoin unless we allow it
Yes, and you can see in this thread the people who will allow it. Because it's "inevitable". Because they want to comply with the government. Because they are scared. Because they put greed over principle. Frankly, I don't care about what the people do with bitcoin v.0.8. They almost certainly will turn it into Govtcoin. But the genie is out of the bottle. The true bitcoin is in our very immediate future, and it will UTTERLY DESTROY states around the world. Maybe a better idea (than destroying states) is to regain influence in the law making process. Something like http://openministry.info/ might be a good start. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
