Well its only inflatacoin for a while, eventually that new supply relative to the amount in the world would be really really small and its likely their would be a equilibrium point where the value of Bitcoin starts to deflate like we have now.

The big difference is inflatacoin can continue past 100 years. You all think Bitcoin can work past 100 years but it won't, with all the offchain payments systems that are coming online transactions fees will not be enough to secure the network. And if they do secure the network it will be because only a large whale can make a transaction.

Why are emails being sent out saying that the manual withdraw has been done when nothing has been done?

I have made a withdrawal and after a few hours it confirmed (manual withdrawal)


Except nothing has arrived.

You can check the address, no recent transactions.

Haha fair enough

Even though I have flipped stock before I am going to hold a small amount of this one. It seems like one of the more interesting investments. (minings IPOS are now a dime a dozen)

This makes no sense, if Litecoins are going up in value you are better off buying and holding them.

If you buy them now you shield yourself from the difficulty rising and making your GPU's even more pointless.

Instead of mining $600 of Litecoin over the next several months, you can take out the variance and just buy the whole lot.

Disregard everything I said if your GPU purchase will mine $600 of Litecoins in 1 - 2 months, or if you have reason to believe that the difficulty will start to drop.

Ok I am reading through the document.

Do you think that a 0% per annum of AUM and 25% of profits would be a better incentive than the typical 2/20 hedge fund system?

I find it interesting that you could be losing us money whilst still making 2% year over year.

EDIT: Also how many hours until you close the IPO? I am interested.

So this means we instantly lose 2% of our investment?

The value of each share is determined by the value of the fund. How will you update the current value? Via the website perhaps?

This essentially gives you 100% control over the share value. If you say each share is now worth 0.5 then who are the shareholders to argue.

How long until the fund will increase enough to cover this instant 2% loss. Also are you paying yourself a wage from the fund? Meaning that if the fund maintains its base value we will lose value due to your wages?

Thanks for clarifying.

I have two ideas on my mind about possible features of a future Bitcoin type crypto-currency.

Bitcoin 2.0 is stuff we could do now even inside an alternative currency, but requires discussion and a serious launch. Bitcoin 3.0 is a more complex idea I have had that may or may not ever be technically feasible.

Bitcoin 2.0

This idea is not mine and not new. Before laughing this off as a rehash of old ideas just have a think about it.

With the recent rise of inputs.io and inevitible future "off the chain" payment systems transaction fees are going to be less and less central to the network. The solution proposed by many is to have no reducing block reward and make the release of new Bitcoins constant. Many will shout inflation overload! at this idea, but think about it. If Satoshi made Bitcoin release 50 Bitcoins for all time we would always have enough new coin to sustain network security.

As more and more Bitcoins came into existence the effective rate of inflation would reduce for all time. In a hundred years the inflation amount would be 0.001% and Bitcoins would still go up in value because the rate of mining would in relation to the amount in distribution always fall. As more and more Bitcoins get mined the amount being mined relative to the already mined coins will decrease.

Its more natural than the current system we have and allows for a more immortal network. In 100 years it would be far to expensive to move any amount of Bitcoin. Many people here love that idea because their stash of Bitcoins becomes immovable digital gold worth billions. In reality such a cumbersome commodity will be replaced by something more effective. Bitcoins already are gaining value because its better than gold.

Well Bitcoin 2.0 is better than Bitcoin 1 because we can still send microtransactions for a small fee in 50 - 100 years.

Also those mined Bitcoins in 100 years, even though they are the same amount being released as "today" on this hypothetical Bitcoin 2.0 will be worth loads. Bitcoins will still gain value in the constant release and in fact because the system has more incentive to work after 100 years Bitcoin 2.0 Bitcoins will have more value that a stalled Bitcoin 1 network.

I know, I know I can just release a alternative Bitcoin and people can choose my network.... Well there is no point at the moment because we are still mining a lot of Bitcoin. Many people here do not care where Bitcoin is in 100 years and expect it to be dead anyway. But I think discussion about an immortal crypto-currency network is worth our time, even if at this point it's entirely academic.

Bitcoin 3.0

I won't write as much about Bitcoin 3.0 because I actually have no idea how it would work.

Bitcoin 3.0 has a completely different proof of work.

Bitcoin 3.0 is like Tor with cloud storage. So nodes that contribute space and bandwidth are rewarded with coins. Everyone on the network provides a little amount of relay information and the bare minimum pays for their own usage of the system. People that leech and give nothing back (perhaps the smallest of computers) will be forced to pay some Bitcoin to use the system. But the network itself generates Bitcoin to reward nodes. The rate would be less than 1% or something but enough to give incentives so that people contribute infrastructure towards the project.

Nodes can also offer computing power and space too and get rewarded by the users. I'll explain it with a few examples.

James wants to backup his personal data into the Bitcoin network, he puts some Bitcoin into a special address that pays out little amounts to bring online distributed space from around the world. The more he pays the more distributed his data is and the longer it lasts (if his address were to run out of money his data would eventually be removed by the nodes because they are no longer being reimbursed to hold the data)

This address is a special address that is authorised by James to pay a set amount per hour or minute to create a space for his data. The only way to access this address and force out money is to hold his private key.

Laura wants to run a gaming server but has no space in her house, she pays a small amount of Bitcoin into the system to create a virtual server and her friends contribute too when they all play online, the server is removed by the nodes after laura stops paying.

This also allows for websites to be built with their own Bitcoin to pay for their own hosting within the network, effectively creating sites that are immortal and impossible to close.

Ben had sensitive documents about his local government that he wanted to release, he created a website and loaded the documents up. He created a special Bitcoin address that was to pay for the hosting (remember the sites are hosted on the nodes and the entire domain system is internal, if you pay for a domain it would be cryptographically safe) Ben loaded up some Bitcoin and also set the site to request the visitor's pay a micro amount of Bitcoin. He then deleted his key to the domain, site and Bitcoin address and told the local newspaper about the address. The Bitcoin was enough for 10 years of hosting and also the visitor payments were enough to cover each viewing, meaning the site would now last 10 years after the last visitor and would be impossible to ever remove. Even if Ben had regrets, now the keys were gone the site was set in stone.

Sally wanted to upload the latest batman movie but couldn't afford the high Bitcoin fee it would take to load such a huge file over many nodes, and would be intended to be downloaded many times. Instead Sally sets up a new site, "bitcoinPirateBay" the site charges a micro fee to all downloaders and this covers all the space needed from the nodes. The site is huge and because all connections are anonymous and all visitors have to pay it becomes the first file sharing service that is truly outside the law.

George needs to use a supercomputer for some protein folding simulations, his university is offering a grant to pay for computer use but all the local supercomputers are booked for the next 6 months. He instead uses the grant to pay for computing space on the Bitcoin network.

I imagine a future where the whole internet is just this one massive mesh network that is also using its internal currency to offer incentives to people to keep it alive.

The people that built the cables and such like ISP's do today would profit from transaction fees and the bitcoins generated by the network. Every person that made the system faster, safer and better would be rewarded. In this future no government could even shut the system off because people are greedy and peoples greed would mean this network would extend to every square meter of the world.

Also I thought a more advanced feature would be a internal simulator that simulated new code into the network. If the code was found to be a good addition to the network the code would be distributed to all nodes and that developer would be rewarded. But that last bit is more of a AI.



Anyway. Am I mad?

Yeah that is a good point, but most people into Bitcoin don't care about those real world consequences so much, already they are putting hundreds of thousands into a random dice site created less than 2 months ago.

I'm sure if this was a investing forum with experienced investors things would be very different, but the world of Bitcoin is very wild west still.

However I do agree with you.

Depends, a load of weak hands are selling cheap. If you are going to hold the stock until December it will be worth it. But if you want to sell this month then don't buy it.

Well hopefully this will make an equilibrium. As more people think that the risk for 4% is not worth it and pull out, the risk takers among us that stay invested will profit a little more.

As more people divest in the future, investor returns will increase and more people will come back to invest, the key is that the people that simply stay invested will profit the most, even if some months we only make 1%

Personally I think will are quickly approaching a point where getting 20% a year will be normal. I am hoping a lot of people start pulling out at that point, if they don't then the returns here will become worse than a savings account.

Depends on the markets, perhaps this is better moved to the alternative coin area as Bitcoin whales are going to be impossible to overcome.

For Litecoin I know that a handful of people control 30% of all Litecoins. If we want to overcome this force we need to have at least 3,000,000 Litecoins between the group. If we can not muster even 40% of this sum we better just give up now.

Also this would require trust between perhaps a thousand people, trust that one does not screw all the others.

You are right that we reduce the unused address space every time we make a new one, but the space of addresses is so large its not a issue.

I wrote this ages ago about the scale of the address sapce:


Interestingly, every time you create an address you are playing a lottery in which you may win someones coins. The only issue is that this lottery is the most difficult lottery in the cosmos.

Haha TradeFortress created inputs.

This is good news, so if batch 3 does not sell our shares become slightly more valuable (Bigger amount of the profits?)

Is this correct?

Will deterministic wallets be used in the official client at some point? Then only 1 key needs to be backed up and you can rebuild all the addresses from that key in the future, no lost addresses.

Or zerocoin/zerocoin like implementation.

Sure some people can verify their wallets for the government, and they can sign a contract with their government saying they will not mix coins and not use zerocoin when it's implemented. Then the government can trace everything they do.

No worries.

But not all countries will require this and the core system must stay free and private.

I imagine eventually all Americans will have to lodge their bitcoin wallets and keys with a bank to be free from prosecution.

But please do not impose the American ideal on the rest of the world.

Thanks.

Yeah it would make sense that an increasing Bitcoin price would result in better hash returns per share. This is only because HashFast prices in USD like you have stated. Its good for people to consider this when making a long term decision.