For me, all these features and others that they're building are what I look for in an ALTCOIN.
And what are the names of the 12 users of this coin? Features without adoption is useless. "Hey ma, I made a token and everybody had to buy my token in order to use features they can get for free on the Internet". "Son, have you ever heard of the hen and egg dilemma?" "No ma, I am a millennial and we never visited a farm nor left your sofa. Too busy playing Xbox and popping my pimples while eating pizza." |
|
|
|
I posted at this other thread with enthusiasm for the BTC price based on recent news, but I disputed this claim about it: |
|
|
|
In any case, looks like another Bitcoin fever is about to be ignited in 2017, so we have another mad gold rush likely coming at us soon. So expect the altcoin sector to go even more bananas crazy as a result...Remember what LTC did in the 2013 bubble! It will probably be a different altcoin in the 2017 - 2019 time frame, which does another 100X rocketshot (maybe 1000X from the lowest prices). Looks like a serious breakout to ATHs is within months: Note they need the raise the upper limit of block size (while lowering the average block size with the one-time SegWit compression) in order to accommodate surge load and also one of the flaws of Lightning Networks is it can place very high surge load on the blockchain. So although this isn't the fix for the long-term, it is a near-term solution to open the throttle on Bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
Looks like a serious breakout to ATHs is within months: Note they need the raise the upper limit of block size (while lowering the average block size with the one-time SegWit compression) in order to accommodate surge load and also one of the flaws of Lightning Networks is it can place very high surge load on the blockchain. So although this isn't the fix for the long-term, it is a near-term solution to open the throttle on Bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
Looks like a serious breakout to ATHs is within months: Note they need the raise the upper limit of block size (while lowering the average block size with the one-time SegWit compression) in order to accommodate surge load and also one of the flaws of Lightning Networks is it can place very high surge load on the blockchain. So although this isn't the fix for the long-term, it is a near-term solution to open the throttle on Bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
China Curbs Gold ImportsThis would automatically shift demand to digital gold, aka Bitcoin. If that happens, you can expect China to take action restricting purchases of Bitcoin in some time. So a short and quick raise in bitcoin's price would be followed by a dump.  Don't bet on it. First of all, it will boost smuggling and black market activity. Bitcoin is a niche product, only few people are aware of it as an investment alternative. The direct impact of China news on Bitcoin prices is greatly exaggerated. So I don't expect a rise in BTC price because of it. Even if the scenario you are pointing out becomes reality, restrictions for Bitcoin purchases would not succeed on a large scale, because you can't ban p2p trade. China doesn't need to import BTC since most of the minted BTC is now mined inside of China. Unless China can track ongoing every BTC mined in China by requiring them to be sold and held on regulated exchanges that never allow users to have access to private keys (which would not be Bitcoin any more), then they have no hope of regulating it. If China does basterdize BTC that way, then Bitcoin is dead. And we will just move on to another altcoin. In which case the mining farms in China will be useless door stops. Also China would be shooting its own technology sector in the foot. I just don't think China's think tanks are this stupid. China is powerless to stop crypto-currency. Besides the capital flight via BTC is so damn small so as to be insignificant. The entire market cap of Bitcoin is only a minuscule $12 billion. The daily volume on Bitcoin is $48 million and RNB forex volume is some $5 trillion annually or $14 billion daily. We need a 10 or 100X higher BTC price before we have to worry about it being significant to China's capital flight volumes. ... [more to read] ...
Looks like a serious breakout to ATHs is within months: Note they need the raise the upper limit of block size (while lowering the average block size with the one-time SegWit compression) in order to accommodate surge load and also one of the flaws of Lightning Networks is it can place very high surge load on the blockchain. So although this isn't the fix for the long-term, it is a near-term solution to open the throttle on Bitcoin adoption. |
|
|
|
And then he gets caught and points his finger at you
You are repeating what I already pointed out: The fly in this ointment is that ironclad anonymity against the national security agencies is very dubious. How can you control when the person you bought the ranch from screws up his anonymity and TPTB rubber hose him to force him to reveal the crypto-currency was obtained from you.
Instead I suggest a plausible different strategy...
|
|
|
|
China Curbs Gold ImportsThis would automatically shift demand to digital gold, aka Bitcoin. If that happens, you can expect China to take action restricting purchases of Bitcoin in some time. So a short and quick raise in bitcoin's price would be followed by a dump. Don't bet on it. First of all, it will boost smuggling and black market activity. Bitcoin is a niche product, only few people are aware of it as an investment alternative. The direct impact of China news on Bitcoin prices is greatly exaggerated. So I don't expect a rise in BTC price because of it. Even if the scenario you are pointing out becomes reality, restrictions for Bitcoin purchases would not succeed on a large scale, because you can't ban p2p trade. China doesn't need to import BTC since most of the minted BTC is now mined inside of China. Unless China can track ongoing every BTC mined in China by requiring them to be sold and held on regulated exchanges that never allow users to have access to private keys (which would not be Bitcoin any more), then they have no hope of regulating it. If China does basterdize BTC that way, then Bitcoin is dead. And we will just move on to another altcoin. In which case the mining farms in China will be useless door stops. Also China would be shooting its own technology sector in the foot. I just don't think China's think tanks are this stupid. China is powerless to stop crypto-currency. Besides the capital flight via BTC is so damn small so as to be insignificant. The entire market cap of Bitcoin is only a minuscule $12 billion. The daily volume on Bitcoin is $48 million and RNB forex volume is some $5 trillion annually or $14 billion daily. We need a 10 or 100X higher BTC price before we have to worry about it being significant to China's capital flight volumes. ... [more to read] ... |
|
|
|
China Curbs Gold ImportsThis would automatically shift demand to digital gold, aka Bitcoin. If that happens, you can expect China to take action restricting purchases of Bitcoin in some time. So a short and quick raise in bitcoin's price would be followed by a dump. Don't bet on it. First of all, it will boost smuggling and black market activity. Bitcoin is a niche product, only few people are aware of it as an investment alternative. The direct impact of China news on Bitcoin prices is greatly exaggerated. So I don't expect a rise in BTC price because of it. Even if the scenario you are pointing out becomes reality, restrictions for Bitcoin purchases would not succeed on a large scale, because you can't ban p2p trade. China doesn't need to import BTC since most of the minted BTC is now mined inside of China. Unless China can track ongoing every BTC mined in China by requiring them to be sold and held on regulated exchanges that never allow users to have access to private keys (which would not be Bitcoin any more), then they have no hope of regulating it. If China does basterdize BTC that way, then Bitcoin is dead. And we will just move on to another altcoin. In which case the mining farms in China will be useless door stops. Also China would be shooting its own technology sector in the foot. I just don't think China's think tanks are this stupid. China is powerless to stop crypto-currency. Besides the capital flight via BTC is so damn small so as to be insignificant. The entire market cap of Bitcoin is only a minuscule $12 billion. The daily volume on Bitcoin is $48 million and RNB forex volume is some $5 trillion annually or $14 billion daily. We need a 10 or 100X higher BTC price before we have to worry about it being significant to China's capital flight volumes. ... [more to read] ... |
|
|
|
What were those tinfoil hats babbling about India and gold upthread...  The country with the highest demand for gold (India), just outlawed gold. Shit just got real. Citizens homes will be searched and 85% of wealth will be confiscated. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-tax-on-jewellery/gold-purchased-out-of-disclosed-income-Finance-Ministry/articleshow/55724734.cmsLooks like India currently requires Digital Gold for many in order to avoid permanent seizure in the amount of 85% of their assets as "TAX"... Bitcoin demand is going to rocket. Expecting record demand. Killer app activated. Many analysts predicted such a move would likely occur and thus dampen gold demand in India. However this demand will likely shift to other products like bitcoin. India is the second most populous country (with over 1.2 billion people), and the most populous democracy in the world. The country with the highest demand in the world for gold, just outlawed gold. Shit just got real. "Your gold is safe. 500 grams per married woman will not be seized..." http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/gold-jewellery-married-lady-income-tax-raids-demonetisation/1/824321.html"During search operations, conducted by I-T Department, there would be no seizure of gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 grams per married women, 250 grams per unmarried women as also 100 grams per male member of the family, it said. The Bill, which is currently under consideration of the Rajya Sabha, will amend Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act to provide for a steep 60 per cent tax and a 25 per cent surcharge on it (total 75 per cent) for black money holders. Another section inserted provides for an additional 10 per cent penalty on being established that the undeclared wealth is unaccounted or black money, taking the total incidence of levies to 85 per cent." |
|
|
|
This would automatically shift demand to digital gold, aka Bitcoin. If that happens, you can expect China to take action restricting purchases of Bitcoin in some time. So a short and quick raise in bitcoin's price would be followed by a dump. Don't bet on it. First of all, it will boost smuggling and black market activity. Bitcoin is a niche product, only few people are aware of it as an investment alternative. The direct impact of China news on Bitcoin prices is greatly exaggerated. So I don't expect a rise in BTC price because of it. Even if the scenario you are pointing out becomes reality, restrictions for Bitcoin purchases would not succeed on a large scale, because you can't ban p2p trade. China doesn't need to import BTC since most of the minted BTC is now mined inside of China. Unless China can track ongoing every BTC mined in China by requiring them to be sold and held on regulated exchanges that never allow users to have access to private keys (which would not be Bitcoin any more), then they have no hope of regulating it. If China does basterdize BTC that way, then Bitcoin is dead. And we will just move on to another altcoin. In which case the mining farms in China will be useless door stops. Also China would be shooting its own technology sector in the foot. I just don't think China's think tanks are this stupid. China is powerless to stop crypto-currency. Besides the capital flight via BTC is so damn small so as to be insignificant. The entire market cap of Bitcoin is only a minuscule $12 billion. The daily volume on Bitcoin is $48 million and RNB forex volume is some $5 trillion annually or $14 billion daily. We need a 10 or 100X higher BTC price before we have to worry about it being significant to China's capital flight volumes. The correction from $750 due to the fake China scare appears to be a flag pattern. So I am now thinking we may blast right through that cup handle ~$788 and head towards $900.
The (probably complicit) Bitfinex hack and China fake news are probably the Chinaman loading up his wagon with more cheap BTC from shorting. Now time to let it run (up) before the next shorting smash up manipulation.
The strange thing about this is: "restricting domestic bitcoin exchanges from moving the cryptocurrency to platforms outside the nation" - how come this can be done? Bitcoin addresses don't exist in or outside of China. I do believe that sooner or later the Chinese government will do something about bitcoin - but this ignorance about how bitcoin works shows that this warning is not really from any serious source.
And by they way - please link to those Chinese media reports that you mention - because you care to link to material about their reputation but not really to themselves this is kind of strange.
Here you go in order of the list: http://www.cankaoxiaoxi.com/finance/20161104/1398956.shtml 中国将限制比特币兑美元 防止资金外流 China gonna limit bitcoin to stop capital outflows http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2016-11/03/c_129348631.htm 比特币交易变相换汇 风险重重 Bitcoin trading bypass China capital control http://www.gfic.cn/2016/1103/5890032.shtml 单笔“换掉”500万元，用比特币转移人民币资产 Single trade with bitcoin, 5 millions CNY outflow beyond the borders They are citing the Bloomberg article as the source. But that article was pulled. Appears to me that the Chinese are trying to attack the public's confidence in Bitcoin, because they can't stop determined people from using Bitcoin to escape capital controls. I don't expect any actual crackdown, just this FUD. Afaics, the only practical technical way this can be accomplished is to ensure that the users never hold the private keys and thus ensuring that the exchanges do not allow any transfers to any Bitcoin address which is not controlled by the exchange (or another compliant exchange). To ensure that no exchange user can reside outside of China and that no such user can withdraw in fiat outside of the Chinese banking system. If they were to allow users to control private keys, then they would have to enforce such tracking on each user which is impractical to enforce. Thus this proposal means that the Chinese could no longer participate in for example a social network (such as the project I am working on) where the crypto-currency moves from user-to-user regardless of their financial jurisdiction and in which the users control their private keys. In other words, China would effectively be removing their citizens from the Bitcoin (and crypto-currency) ecosystem. I don't see any way they can do this and not render China a 2nd class citizen on the future of the Internet economics. They will stunt the development of their own Internet software technology sector. If China was going to do this, I think they would have done it a long time ago. I would tend to think this is some rumor put out there by those who wanted to make a lot of money shorting. Another sign that the corruption in governance also exists in the government of China's finance bureaucrats (and who would be surprised). Nevertheless before this could actually become a regulation, I think very astute people would have to sign off on it, and I just don't see China shooting themselves in the foot. They are too cunning for that. That Bloomberg has pulled the news off their website is another indication that this was probably malfeasance. I see this as very likely a buying opportunity and a bear trap due to some errant malfeasance within the Chinese bureaucracy. And also that the China's oligarchy control over Bitcoin mining and price is growing. If true, this corrupt influence over Bitcoin is what Bitcoin was supposed to eliminate. But the problem is Satoshi's proof-of-work design naturally centralizes due to economies-of-scale. I have a video which explains this in some detail. And also we can see the control over the exchanges by governments is another choke point of control leading to such malfeasdesignance. We need to do something about this technically. I am working on it. I have a design for unprofitable proof-of-work to address this problem. TPTB_need_war (who some think is me since I am reputed to be AnonyMint) has also done conceptual technical design work on decentralized exchange (and there is some new research on that I haven't yet published). But decentralized exchange probably isn't really the solution because speculators don't want to trade where volume is low and trades aren't instantaneous. Instead the solution is probably about how we onboard millions of users and thus create an ecosystem where fiat is irrelevant for the users, i.e. the crypto-unit becomes the unit-of-account. In that case, the speculators become orthogonal to the users to a great extent (not entirely of course). If China were to wall off their population from this sort of Internet ecosystem, they would I think fall to 2nd class citizens on the Internet. Building their own walled gardens for such would again mean centralized control over private keys, which would mean massive failure due to hackers. China will lose this gambit (of control over crypto-currency) eventually. I expected a correction because the price went too high too quickly. Most of the time when we see it spike high like that, it will come back a little.
They will play you as well, because you'll be the one who sells too early when the price rocket goes into a phase transition run to ATHs. They will eventually do that after they done shaking weak hands out. Your stance can be characterized as another form of weak hand because of selling too soon into a bull run. The first bubble to $1200 in 2013 was the first hump of the typical new technology invesment. The second major hump is the big enchilada and you should never sell except possibly to trade to altcoins to increase your BTC, if you are so inclined and are astute at such speculation.   |
|
|
|
error08 and Carlsen, Soon our trip to Central Europe ends with nary a sight of any Bitcoin sign, logo, etc. Perhaps that will be easier to find tomorrow in Prague ("Slushland").
IMO, crypto-currency is not going to be big in retail, before it dominates online microtransaction commerce. Thus I think you are looking in the wrong place to see the future of crypto-currency. Look at the (failed) Steemit experiment and improvements such as the altcoin I am working on, to see the future of crypto-currency. |
|
|
|
For those who need more convincing: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.ca/2016/11/global-warming-climate-change-whats-it.html “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. “Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications. “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles. “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey. “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report) |
|
|
|
To achieve this, we can take the hash of the hash of the latest block (in the first chain) and give the minting priviledge to the account with the lowest hamming distance to the block in question. Hence, the probability of becoming the next minter doesn't depend on the number of blocks that the account has mined in the first chain. Instead, every miner with at least one valid block has the same chance to mint the block.
That seems to be incorrect. The more blocks you have, the better your random chance of having the least Hamming distance. That's not the case. But my description was a bit unclear, I'm afraid (I have changed it now). The hamming distance is not measured against the blocks you have created but against the hash of the account that you used for creating them. The miners have to sign their blocks of the first chain with their public key so that each block can be related to a specific account. We can then use that key to calculate the distance as follows: hamming_dist(h(h(latest_block)), h(public_key)) Therefore, it doesn't matter how many blocks you have mined, provided that you mined them with the same account. As it's much harder to mine blocks with multiple accounts, the miners are likely to use the same account for mining. You are assuming that the incentive for mining blocks on the first chain outweighs the incentive of Sybil attacking the accounts used to select who will be able to create blocks with transactions. But there is nothing stopping any one from doing both. The Sybil attack is free. To the extent you try to make the Sybil attack not free, you again reintroduce the economies-of-scale of resources and fall right back into the winner-take-all power vacuum. You'll end up spinning your wheels on endless mistakes like this. I sat on my couch for months finding flaws in all my thought experiments. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I understand this. How can the burned fees approach 100% of the stake? Without new money supply, the money would finally disappear if all the fees are burned. Or are you rather referring to some sort of statistical detection as quoted below?
If fees are a percentage and the tokens are infinitely divisible, then the money supply will never be exactly 0. I am doing something somewhat analogous to the following for storing token amounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithmThe really strange aspect of my design is that the coin eventually becomes highly deflationary, so it should suck up investors away from Bitcoin and every other coin which doesn't pay a huge interest rate just for buying and holding. Yet normally hoarding a token should drive it out of circulation (since the burning of fees is a discouragement to transacting versus holding), yet I argue my design will be the first that break Gresham's law. Because the loss due to transacting will be insignificant so when you need to transact you do. This doesn't preclude you holding a lot more tokens than you spend. In other words, I added degrees-of-freedom so you can both hold and spend from the same token without suffering the dilemma of Gresham's law. I think it is also known the Gresham's law only applies where there is legal tender dictated by a political force the provides the public confidence for the currency of mass circulation: The world is not going to entrust the control of money to some cartel of mining farms in China, nor the whales who control 80% of the stake (money supply) of Steem(it).
The level of deflation automatically is adjusted by the free market in that the less who transact, the less deflation but the more incentive to transact (lower opportunity cost to not transacting) and vice versa. I think perhaps this aspect might even be more clever and important than the way I solved the power vacuum dilemma. However, per the above quote, the decentralization is also critically needed to side-step Gresham's law. And then there are the sub-second instant "confirmations" and the asynchronous resiliency and scaling. Yeah so far I am proud of this design. But let's see what happens with peer review and also implementation... |
|
|
|
Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.
Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language. A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain. And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software. Where does a "safe" DB and quality API figure into the tool set? If the database is to be publicized then it can't be obfuscated. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Hide private organization? The Db setup is a back-up of all the market events in the game, so it's more of a score keeper than anything, since it's only game money, it only counts when you leave the virtual deck But my point ever since the start of our debate has been that databases (and thus currencies) have to be globally public for them to have mass effects. The Internet is a massive public database protocol. Those who put it behind obfuscated paywalls reduce its beneficial network effects. |
|
|
|
However what we need is sidechains and forks, not altcoins.
Sorry but I think you are technically incorrect (about the security and viability of the side-chains concept). And it is also why I think Rootstock is another shitcoin. I am not going to go off on this tangent right now. This is the dilemma for speculators, is they don't know the technology deep enough to really know if what they think is correct. Of course it is understandable that you would trust the vast expertise of Blockstream, that is until you consider the conjecture that their alleged business model might be corrupting their judgement: http://btcmarketwatch.com/2015/08/the-blockstream-business-plan/But it is not for me to be altcoin police, so feel free to speculate on what ever you think. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
