In my defense it is not the first time he does that.

You can't mention one of Etlases arguments in your post without quoting every comma or he will whine about you making a "straw man" argument. (as if you would need to, to knock down his "logic"  )
etc. etc.

<Basically me saying I don't like Etlase or his style of (incorrectly) using attacks against my arguing style instead of actually arguing with me>

Okay so lots of people over the time have complained about how unfair Bitcoin is to the early adopters and that in fact this is such a big problem it may limit Bitcoins potential.

As we know Satoshi decided to halve the block reward every ~4 years which leads to something of a ponzi-like early distribution. Morally I don't think there is anything wrong with this:
1. Without the early adopters or Satoshi there would BE no Bitcoin. If Bitcoin stops just ONE future government from going to war because they can't print the money for it, I would have been happy if Satoshi had given himself all damn 21 million coins in the beginning!

2. Gold, stocks and most things in life act similarly - get in early to do well. Surely no one can argue that life is not viable because it is not "fair".

However what ARE the alternatives?

(0. Down-scaling over time/what we have)
1. Satoshi gets all the coins and no new ones are made.
2. Reward goes steady for ~20 years then drops to zero.
3. Reward scales UP, but then cuts off entirely after ~20 years.
4. Some kind of inflation/redistribution scheme.

Scenario 1:
Economy-wise
This would obviously be slightly unfair and likely Bitcoin would have grown very very slowly as people only slowly started to accept Satoshi's Bitcoins.
Bitcoin in this case would very likely have been overtaken by an alt-currency with better minting distribution.

Security-wise
With no incentive to mine beyond rare transactions from Satoshi/friends, mining would likely be lower than it was for Bitcoin; theoretically leading to rampant 51% attacks.
Until the real Bitcoin economy scaled up vastly security would be low, perhaps to the point of making this Bitcoin unworkable in its critical start-up phase.

Scenario 2:
Economy-wise
This would seem slightly more fair to later adopters, but would not reward early adopters for their hard work leading to slower adoption.
Some very very powerful miners would also have a great incentive to continue the reward after the 20 years mark and the hashing power to bring down challengers or users trying to stay original.

This is not such a problem with the current system because the reward slowly fades away over many years - there is both less shock and temptation.

Security-wise
Security wise it should be safe.

So scenario 2 might have done just fine, but we would very likely not be half as far as we are today and there would be some risk of getting a scenario 4 later on.
Lets be honest; ~90% of what is driving Bitcoin today is speculation - without it, Bitcoin could conceivably have spread ~90% slower or been outright replaced due to its slowness leading to temporary a crypto-currency war.
With the way Satoshi took we were spared that.

Scenario 3:
Economy-wise
This would be more "fair" in the eyes of late adopters, but early adopters would not be rewarded as I think they should be. However with this system the miners would become very dependent on such rewards and an entire industry might spring up around it. This industry would be heavily incentivized to continue the rewards leading to a fiat like currency.
Some might oppose this and keep their original clients, but such a powerful industry could feasibly kill alt/original-chains with their sheer mining power.
Scenario 2 would thus likely end up as a scenario 4.

Of course this system would also be adopted very slowly as early comers know there is no incentive to get in early and thus might wait.

Security-wise
In terms of security this system should do just fine.

Scenario 4:
Economy-wise
Some feel this ("this" often as in THEIR system) would be much more "fair" to either late adopters or all users or better for the economy.

Now I simply don't think that something bad for individual users, but good for the economy would catch on without any government or group backing it.

Now perfect money is: An IOU that you can ALWAYS get by doing some USEFUL work/investment and that you can ALWAYS trade for an equal amount of work.
Since NO Bitcoin/alt client devoid of super human AI could tell what "useful work" IS, ANY inflation or redistribution scheme would lead to less than perfect money as it would give IOUs to people/activities who/that did not deserve it.

Bitcoin instead assumes that people will trade their Bitcoin's TO those that do useful work and hence stops printing new coin once a few have been initially distributed through early mining rewards.
Hence Bitcoin is the second-best to a client with in-built godly wisdom or simply "as-perfect-as-can-get-in-real-life".

(Perfect money is not the same as a perfect MARKET mind you: In a perfect market money, whether from inflation, loans, purchases or investments, would always go where it was deserved and needed the most.
This however requires even more godly wisdom than determining what useful work is and as such trying to achieve it by blindly printing money is retarded.
You might get the reasonable idea that governments invest better than a free market of many people, but history and today's events would tell you that that theory is simply wrong.)

Security-wise
Security-wise inflation and redistribution would be fine - perhaps even slightly superior to the current Bitcoin in that miners would often be heavily subsidized where the current Bitcoin will lead towards as little mining as possible once the subsidy is gone.

However with 5 super computers crunching away already, customized hardware and the option for big transactors to mine themselves in order to secure their transaction Bitcoin will likely be safe without inflation.


That was my analysis; discuss/flame!

I meant that as early in a 50-100 years time-frame. I am by no means an early adopter sitting on 400.000 btc like some are.

If Bitcoin is a ponzi, or whatever you believe, I would loose a lot and talking Bitcoin up on a forum would do diddly for me.

I am a blood donor too, is it really so hard to believe that I actually care about other people and genuinely think BTC would help them out?

Dude: (1.02^1+1.02^2+....+1.02^10)/10 IS, by the laws of mathematics, 1.117 or 11.7% more value to a college fund.

But I guess not believing in math and the positivist principle (our other debate) fits perfectly with disbelief in cryptocurrency.

People have invested since WAY before fiat currencies and inflation. People are investing BTC NOW on GLBSE. People are working at mtgox NOW.

So to answer your question: "Historically speaking, going back infinite years or just 1; someone".

You are the one that cannot explain why people will NOT invest/spend BTC or other deflationary currency or why they are doing it now contrary to your theories.

Thanks

+1

The stupid and lazy will always find ways to punish themselves needlessly.

I have about 6.5K DKK in BTC (became worth 12K DKK), 14K DKK in a wind turbine and 5K DKK in a Singaporean fish farm.

You are lying about the heaviness of my investment. Further it would be in my self-interest to talk Bitcoin DOWN so that I could buy more cheaply.

Even if I stood to gain massively the facts and numbers don't lie; even the last adopter stands to gain here.

I guess that's why you should be careful with your passwords around pickpockets right? /sarcasm (dripping)

Okay gahd; you JUST said that fiat and Bitcoin are equal on the technical side, I am trying to argue that in fact fiat is flawed relying on perfect government and then you attack me for believing in perfect government....... DUDE YOUR ARGUMENT WAS THAT FIAT IS SOUND TECHNICALLY, it's NOT MY argument.

There is no such thing as "saving at a faster pace". You can EARN at a faster pace, but this requires creating wealth (or printing money).

Again you cannot make money by looking at the money you already have... I honestly don't what you are thinking here.

Makes perfect sense; today crony politicians print money and give to their donor companies. These companies are run by the crony elite and as such they get to own a greater percentage of the money supply while the poor just had their pensions inflated to oblivion.

Without the elite having the ability to print, the poor have a chance at saving and the elites can't get free money which makes them much less "elite" in the free market.

1. Was inflation eats pensions and 2. was that bitcoins cannot be printed.... which one is NOT a fact?

If BTC was at 0% inflation/deflation then a poor dad saving up a steady amount for 10 years for his kids' college would be able to afford an exactly 11.7% more expensive education compared to same scenario with just 2% inflation.

Maybe you just don't understand how (any school of) economics works. "Hoarding at a faster pace", LOL.

Bitcoin is for the PEOPLE. Go away with your crazy theories about the early adopters - its nothing compared to Ben Bernankes 20% stake in the entire world economy.

Gold did not go away because the US government said it should. It went away as a means of trade because its a bitch to carry around or send across the world.

Gold is however STILL used as a store of wealth and is STILL traded among big central banks and goldbugs. If the US announced tomorrow that all their gold in fort knox was gone, the dollar would likely drop a little.

Bitcoin does not have the problems of golds bulkiness and will become the new "easy" currency - except it is also BETTER, not "just" easier than fiat.

Fiat could be very strong in the hands of a trustworthy government - however with all the temptation in the world to print and no reasons NOT to the incentive model of fiat is flawed.
The incentive model of something might not be technical, but it cannot be changed and is fundamental - and for fiat heavily flawed.

But:
1. Poor people can save up in Bitcoin while in fiat they would loose on inflation (and since they are poor, they have very few other options).
2. The elite cannot print bitcoin and so hoard less.

Given these two facts, I would say Bitcoin is MORE fair and will over time lead to a BETTER distribution of wealth.

It doesn't matter really:

If the seller pays the fee and you are the buyer, all that happens is that he gives YOU a higher price - in the end most users end up paying the fees equally.

Interesting info. Thanks.

Swarm client combined with 10-year-ledger, search the forum and rejoice

Technically the Bitcoin network could handle all trade in the world.
It would require some updates, but no hard forks:

1. Swarm client; thought it up myself, allows smaller computers to participate in a VISA+ sized network with no sweat. It can be bridged to the current full node network no problem as the only change is in the communication protocol - a bridge would spread blocks from both networks into the other, with no one being able to see the difference.

2. Ledger update; every 10-20 years the BTC beyond this time would be put in a public ledger and earlier blockchains deleted to save HD space. The BTC would still be there and spendable, but stored in a simpler fashion. 10-20 years to avoid temporary 51% attacks to completely rewrite history in the ledgers. (ala the genesis block)
These clients would still be able to communicate with older clients, but would simply not answer any requests for blocks 10-20 years old.
(This one is not my idea btw)

3. Possible cryptographic breach/ECDSA update due to quantum computers; the protocol already more or less supports new address/key systems, slowly or quickly switching to a safer standard would not require a hard fork.

4. Running out of units; the client can be hard forked to allow more decimal places - however this is such a natural update that I doubt anyone will object when the time comes. (1 Satoshi would no longer be the smallest unit)

Simply put; as long as you are operating within a space sphere of maybe 1 light minute (0.125 AU) in diameter - Bitcoin can last forever and for any size economy. (assuming the current understanding of physics and no practical wormholes)


There may be other cryptocurrencies, but I really think Bitcoin will remain the new "gold standard" for at least a hundred years as it has no weak points and there is no really good reason to use other copy currencies.

The dollar and euro are likely doomed, but I guess people could choose many other things than bitcoin to hedge with/panic to. 100% penetration is unlikely for anything, but Bitcoin could feasibly become the world reserve currency like dollars are today in 20-100 years.

Okaaaaay.... your argument is that A: they WANT to make money and B: they can PRINT money.

I think that we all want to make money, so that is HARDLY a viable business plan in and of itself.

... since they cannot PRINT BTC no matter the amount of guns they have your argument is basically... retarded.

Semantics; you are also in charge of picking the bank to keep you safe and carefully reading the terms so the two are exactly the same.
"Bitcoin" refers to the network/protocol/client-swarm, "bitcoins", BTC or "BTC" refer to the unit of exchange. (wiki definition)

Now I REALLY REALLY don't care about stupid ass pretentious semantics/grammar, but as I said "Bitcoin does both" using the word for the network and NOT the word for the currency I was in fact saying it exactly correct:

The Bitcoin network blockchain stores wealth and the Bitcoin network blockchain transfers wealth.

Bitcoin IS money - because I can buy shit with it and get paid with it, go live under a bridge troll.

Largely I do not see banks survive in a Bitcoin world.

Banks do two things:
1. Store large amounts of money securely.
2. Transfer money.

Bitcoin does both.


Loans and interest is called "investing with risk" and that is what hedgefunds/bonds/stocks are for. If a bank guarantees you any kind of return on investment/(deposit) without telling you HOW they are making that money, it is a scam.

BTC interest is simply not happening while BTC itself is increasing 100% in value per year, its insane. There is no way anyone could make that in the long run or without huge risks - as soon as they moved the capital into the real world trying to earn that interest their fiat would loose value faster than the BTC doing nothing.

Maybe when the BTC deflation is at ~1-3%/year in 10-20 years interest on BTC deposits could realistically happen.

In short banks came into existence because of the inherent problems with gold and fiat money and now they will all disappear again as their business case is GONE.
Only loaning and investment firms will remain - though of course such may choose to call themselves banks for branding reasons.


Also, danalex, for your information:
Your "anonymous" BTC address next to your name and forum id (whose IP the forum admins can look up) is in fact NOT anonymous.

Umm, yeah... yeah! THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!!!

French name and saw japanese movie EQUALS "Satoshi".

Philosophy and math EQUALS cryptography.

No background in programming EQUALS master programmer.


IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW - WOULD YOU LIKE A CAT!?

I don't think Bitcoin will do much for the environment. BTC just makes things go more efficiently, but whether that "thing" is ecological suicide for profit or sustainable living is out of BTCs hands.

It will always be a political thing whether to show greed or restraint. Reactive aggressive thinking or proactive constructive thinking. Evil and Good.

Of course with stable deflationary money, wealth might go to those with the long view - who might normally get punished by inflation for their saving, low return sustainable investments and lack of short term greed. That might help, but I'm not sure that is what will happen.

As for the "deflationary death spiral"; it makes no sense and will never happen: "our economy has tanked so much that we have all become filthy rich" = NONSENSE.

Yeah I saw that, I still think it is unclear. Maybe just because I haven't heard "maker/taker" before.

EDIT: Added a line that makes sense to me now.

Alright so basically there is always a fee on trades. That could have been more clear.

This means I cannot rely on GLBSE for other than advertising my fund as such a trade cost is unacceptable. For electrons moving around that is insane.


Luckily it looks like my friend might be interested in making some competition* for GLBSE - until then I will allow my investors to trade bonds at market rate manually via contacting myself.

You see my bond is an inflation secure fiat based bond so I want people to hold it instead of dollars when they think BTC will crash and then quickly resell. They can't do that unless the trade fee is small.


Anyway thanks for the info!

EDIT:
*A small site for trading my bond(s), not a full new GLBSE... that's not even in the plans right now.

Okay so if sellers place orders that cannot be matched then no one ever will pay a fee and buyers can match and take these orders free?

Or are you just saying that the fee happens as soon as the actual sale goes through and not before?

So let me get this straight...

If I place an order that:

1. Matches exactly in price with an order in the order book - I pay no fee.

2. Matches exactly in price AND in the number of shares with an order in the order book - I pay no fee.

1 or 2?

Thanks in advance!!!