If the coin caps start decreasing it will be a strong deflationary pressure that will encourage people to only hold coins rather than to use them in transactions
There is no need to guess what can happen with a hoarded coin regarding liquidity and trade: We already know how it works from seeing a $600 BTC with hoarding percentages of >50%. The only thing that changes is the amount of BTC that merchants ask for their goods. Five years ago they would ask 10.000 BTC for a pizza, now they are ok for 0.02 BTC and in two years they might be ok for a few satoshis  Thus the problem of liquidity is solved. The only reason more coins are needed is to provide a fairer distribution in the mid term. |
|
|
|
If you push too hard for only investors to get in, the end-users who would most benefit from the anonymity factor (people in seriously oppressive regimes and the suchlike) won't be able to, and it'll become stagnant, and full of partially laundered money that rarely moves.
This can't happen. If the price goes up many times due to being a store of value coin, then the quantities needed for trading or trading anonymously, go down massively because each monetary unit (1 DRK) represents a much higher value: A $100 DRK will require 1/100th of the coins being liquid and on the move, in order to facilitate trade, compared to a $1 DRK. It's an auto-compensation mechanism. A scarce, low-inflation, high-value coin can also be a medium of payments/commercial transactions etc. The opposite is not true however: You can have any coin as a medium of payments but not as a store of value, unless it satisfies certain criteria. The choice is really not between a) A store of value coin which is unable to do payments and b) A payment coin which cannot hold value ...it's rather c) A coin that can do payments AND be a store of value - because these two are not mutually exclusive vs d) A payment coin which cannot hold value The problem of (b/d) is this: Coin competition is strong. In order to survive out there you must have the least amount of improvable weaknesses. Every weakness of yours can be exploited by others. You can have the best technical coin and a clone will come and then say: "Darkcoin was great but it is too inflationary for it to become both a payment medium AND a store of value... so we fixed their problem and we'll do better" => problem right there. |
|
|
|
But if we limit the coin supply, and have say 10m coins within X years, then one might think that this makes the coin a good store of value, but I would argue that it will TanteStefana is right about what people would say... They'd say, oh only the people who got in early will ever have any coin, why should I make them rich?
Those that think that way, let them join a highly inflationary coin and learn their lesson. When it's in a slow death for months and years and they are like "oh, whyyyyyyyyy did I lose my money, time, mining effort", then they may realize how real economy works. |
|
|
|
As it stands, DarkCoin can live forever, if the artificial 84million cap were removed. It is still rare, it takes a century to get to 100 million. Look at the United States Deficit! It's in the Trillions! And people think 100 million coins for the world population is too much?
Bitcoin won't die just because it'll stop producing coins at some point - otherwise no-one would buy it thinking it's dead and buried already. There's still transaction fees to be mined after the coin generation phase and if the coin has endured for so long, that means it will have transactions. Finite and scarce coins are always better than infinite crapcoins. The elite-hoarding argument is true for every single coin in circulation. If the elite have the money and want to buy in, they can buy anything they like and hoard it. It is not infinite if the demand outpaces the supply, by a lot! And bitcoin is already stagnant. It sits like gold in a vault, under your bed, behind the couch. Let's say you have bitcoin which has 21mn coins but it will be destined to grow for ever and it's a bad store of value. Thus its price is low but it's highly liquid and nobody hoards it. Thus the price is, say, 10$ instead of 1000$. This means that there are 21mn X 10$ = 210mn USD in bitcoins that can be moved around for commerce / payments etc. Now, let's change that and make it finite. 90% of people hoard bitcoin and the price goes from 10 to 1000$. Thus ~19mn coins are in hoarding and ~2mn coins are in circulation for commerce. However these 2mn coins can now handle commerce/payments/trade etc of 2mn coins X 1000 USD each = 2bn USD. You would actually only need 200.000 coins of 1000 USD each to cover what previously required 21.000.000 coins at a price of 10$. You see the spike in price for the hoarded coins allows for a much lesser number of coins to cover commerce / payments / trade or financial daytrading. So it's not really a problem. And now the coin not only serves for trading/commerce etc but also as a store of value as well. You can't go wrong with this. |
|
|
|
As it stands, DarkCoin can live forever, if the artificial 84million cap were removed. It is still rare, it takes a century to get to 100 million. Look at the United States Deficit! It's in the Trillions! And people think 100 million coins for the world population is too much?
Bitcoin won't die just because it'll stop producing coins at some point - otherwise no-one would buy it thinking it's dead and buried already. There's still transaction fees to be mined after the coin generation phase and if the coin has endured for so long, that means it will have transactions. Finite and scarce coins are always better than infinite crapcoins. The elite-hoarding argument is true for every single coin in circulation. If the elite have the money and want to buy in, they can buy anything they like and hoard it. |
|
|
|
Block halving was too much but -20% sounds good |
|
|
|
|
LENR can have a dual effect in the price of BTC (as the ratio between gold quantity and BTC quantity changes):
1) Synthetic gold = more gold
2) Cheap energy = more gold (as the main cost in gold extraction is energy cost)
Even if #1 is expensive or impossible, #2 is a serious possibility for inflating the above ground gold quantities.
Gold and silver inflation have happened in the past when new rich-deposits were discovered but what changed was usually the silver/gold ratio (as these two were the only type of money).
Last but not least (LENR aside) there is also the possibility of new mining techniques, new extraction techniques (extraction from black sand or ores) or new capabilities of mining ground (even underseas) which can also inflate gold quantities.
|
|
|
|
xpt protocol pools. For now that is: ypool.net and ric.upcpu.com
Thanks. I just went to download the faster client and saw AVX2 and SSE4 binaries. I only have up to ssse3, so I guess they won't run for me... Bummer. |
|
|
|
|
8 times? Nice stuff... With what pools is it compatible?
|
|
|
|
but i am not able to login ? Again i have to sign up ? No, I think it should work with the same login/pass unless there is a problem with the account. Personally, I didn't re-register and I still use the same as in the old site. |
|
|
|
I insist in DRK potential as a way to store wealth not necessarily when the alternative is fiat under a well established democratic government. In that situation fiat would actually IMHO would be better, but when you have regulated currencies where you can't by law exchange your currency for dollars like Venezuela or access is very limited or there is a black market with huge rates. Or when you have huge amounts of cash in countries like Mexico and Colombia that you cant easily move something like a DRK with the limitations and risks a crypto currency has would be a way better alternative. And I am banking in getting some attention from those sectors once the coin is well established with all due respect to people that are less liberal about the potential use of the coin.
I bet cryptocurrencies can become more desirable for wealth preservation than 50-60% of highly-inflated national currencies out there. Americans or Europeans with hard currency like the USD and the EUR cannot *really* understand what inflation feels like. We had the drachma over here (greece) in the 80s, official inflation was like >20% and your only option, since you were barred from buying gold or USD, was to deposit the money in a bank or buy a government bond and get an interest rate close to the inflation rate just to keep your capital near what it was. Alternatively you could do investments all the time in businesses, real estate etc - to keep the money moving and hoping it will multiply itself. This type of use for cryptocurrencies is vastly underrated in the western world of hard currencies. |
|
|
|
Ok, so I haven't received any submissions for the logo & art bounty, and the bounty amount is close to what's required to pay for a crowdsourced logo design at somewhere like http://99designs.com.au/ so I might pull that bounty and go with that. Can you also try to "fit" in the bounty a professional-looking splash logo for the wallet? (the screen that appears prior to opening the wallet) Bitcoin is using something like that: http://s1.postimg.org/aigukf5bz/splash_bit.jpg...and we are running a modified litecoin one (the blue sky with the leather wallet), but it'd be nicer to have our own design. |
|
|
|
Fastest, for now, is mine: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/crypto/ric/I should be pushing an update in a few hours. Dev fee is 7% now as discussed earlier, will be chopped down and open sourced with no fee within a few days. Only xptMiner is compatible with ypool at this point, to my knowledge. Aha, thanks for your swift reply. Your compilation problem is because of an STL issue - you may be missing a -I to where clang has its STL, or are using an out of date version.
If it's any help for debugging, the same is done when I use g++4-9 or icpc instead of g++ (it's 4.8 by default in my system). Are you on a mac? I haven't tried getting xptminer built on mine, but I could give it a go if that's why you're having troubles with it.
Nope, I'm on a linux / wolfdale setup, just looking to optimize through compilation with gcc-4.9, icc, clang, clang++, g++-4.9 and icpc. |
|
|
|
If real money for transactions was gold and silver, like 50-100 years ago, that would be another issue altogether.
There is NO SUCH THING as "real money". Money is just a medium that makes multi-party exchange easier, and that obtains these parties' belief that it will not become obsolete or redundant when they will want to use it. It could have been cows, gold, water, or paper... It couldn't be meat, or vegetables because these "mediums of exchange" become obsolete after a short while. Indeed, it's all a matter of consensus. But a piece of paper or a piece of nickel is simply junk compared to scarce assets like gold and silver. |
|
|
|
I disagree with anyone who suggests a digital good is a store of wealth. There is a fine line between a tool of payment ie currency and a store of wealth. Nevertheless i love darkcoin for what it is, a great tool to make anonymous or semi anonymous financial transactions.
It all breaks down to whether one also thinks a piece of paper called "cash" is also a good store of wealth. For most countries which experience high inflation, some digital coins can preserve people's wealth far better than their national currency. After all, digital coins are valued in paper. So, it's all an absurd situation. If real money for transactions was gold and silver, like 50-100 years ago, that would be another issue altogether. |
|
|
|
Is the miner in the first page compatible with ypool (seems to have its own?)... and if yes, which is the fastest? And a second question: If I replace g++ with clang++ I get this: make clang++ -c -Wall -Wextra -std=c++0x -O3 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer -march=native -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/include -IxptMiner/includes/ -IxptMiner/OpenCL -I../gmp-5.1.3 xptMiner/ticker.cpp -o xptMiner/ticker.o clang++ -c -Wall -Wextra -std=c++0x -O3 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer -march=native -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/include -IxptMiner/includes/ -IxptMiner/OpenCL -I../gmp-5.1.3 xptMiner/main.cpp -o xptMiner/main.o In file included from xptMiner/main.cpp:1: xptMiner/global.h:4:10: fatal error: 'algorithm' file not found#include <algorithm> ^ 1 error generated. make: *** [xptMiner/main.o] Error 1 ...any ideas to fix it? |
|
|
|
of miners from other coins. Vertcoin already nearly doubled in value and gained 40%+ market cap. Bitcoinscrypt got +400% market cap Unfortunately we were not affected by these news in anyway  Vertcoin was listed on coinwarz... Bitcoin-scrypt is going through the initial pump+dump+forget A lot of coins got pumped in the last 24 hours or so... aurora, 42, vert, bitcoin-scrypt, kittehcoin etc. Bitcoin whales find it hard to trade btc/fiat for profit so they have to make some gains with alt pumps. Interestingly they tried it with coins that were in a severe downtrend for quite a while in order to play it safe. |
|
|
|
That is why IMHO we have a lot riding on the release of Darksend and we should take the time to do it right, because if Darksend does not work as expected then we are just another cryptocoin with no real value proposition.
What you say would be 100% true if DRK was an scrypt clone, but it's not. There are other differences as well, beyond DarkSend. Quark went on the market with 6 hashes to say it's ultra-secure, yet DRK has 11. This makes DRK a much safer coin than most (if not all) and also positions itself as a hedge against single-hashing currencies which are open to the possibility of having a catastrophic failure in case of a problematic hash. I mean if there is a market for Quark, why shouldn't there be for DRK - which is better than Quark in what Quark was supposed to provide in terms of security and safety? The economic model behind DRK is also less inflationary in the mid-term which will allow it to be a good store of value. Anonymity is the #1 feature of course, but it's not the only one. Otherwise if anonymity was the only criterion where a coin has real value proposition, then every coin in coinmarketcap would not have real value proposition according to this rationale. The fact is that coins like litecoin, quark and vertcoin were promoted just because they used a different algorithm. Darkcoin introduced a different algorithm (which may be better than scrypt, scrypt-n or quark's) and yet it goes under the radar / unnoticed / not-considered-as-something-important, because people are focused on the anonymity aspect. ASIC resistant coins offer no additional benefits to the end users they do exactly the same, they really just give the existing mining community a currency to redirect their hashing power to
This is a deeper issue of distributing the monetary base to more miners rather than a few centralized ASIC mining farms. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
