Err.. So in Option 1) is $1 not the Peg Price ?

Hello,

I was wondering something..

What would happen, in a hypothetical setting, if you had a new coin, you pre-mined 1 Billion coins, then you sold those coins at a 'known' rate ?

The 2 options I mean are

1) You sell them for $1 each. All the way to 1 Billion coins.

2) You sell the first 100 million for 0.1cents, the next 100 million for 1cent, the next 100 million for 0.1$ (10 cents).. etc.. x10 every 100 million. (or some other predetermined geometric rate)

I was thinking this would 'somehow' peg the value of the currency to a known amount?

I think I like (1), all the coins are sold at $1, and once all the coins are sold, THEN, the exchanges would take over. Not that you could stop them of course, but who would pay more than $1 when you could buy it for that.

Option (2) seems very similar to the mining concept as the early adopters would get their coins cheaper.

The reason I like it is that the coins can be introduced at whatever speed is required, as the economy grows AND a price for the coins would be much easier to determine. Especially in option (1). Psychologically you would be able to price things much better if you thought 1BTC = 1USD (or whatever).

In general, I would hope this would lead to economic stability while the coin matures and grows past the Billion dollar mark.. ?

There would be no mining rewards for miners, just a 0.1% txn fee or some other established amount.. and there may/may not be inflation in the coin.

Economically, is this viable/stupid/interesting/bollox ?

I see.

SO - If we imagine that p2pool becomes the de-facto pool. let's say 90% or even 99% of the hashrate comes from p2pool. What happens if ONE miner (entity or a private pool of miners) controls 51% of the hashrate of p2pool ?

Can't he still do his attack then ?

I mean the ROLL-Back attack, where he can create a new valid chain, and catchup then overtake the current chain (making his the longest chain), and remove the spends he wants.. ?

Hi,

I understand technically how p2pool operates, and that it is HOP proof and DOS proof.

BUT - can someone explain, technically, why it mitigates the 51% attack.. ?

Is it the fact that since the sharechain used is so much faster, you would need to have 99% of the Hashrate to overrun the sharechain ?

So instead of a 51% attack - you need 99% for a successful attack ?

Hi,

Like the look of p2pool.. 

I understand that p2pool is DOS resistant and HOP proof but can some one explain how it manages to mitigate the 51% attack ?

Is it because the sharechain it uses is so much faster that you would need 90% (or more..) of the hashrate to overrun that chain ?

So basically IF everyone was using p2pool we would only be vulnerable to a 90% attack ?

?

HA! I said I'd call it quits and yet here I am..

This really is it though, on this topic.. too much code to write..


Careful - you get the right shoulder action going, you can throw a coin pretty far..

On a serious note - I don't like alt-coins.. Well not the ones that have been produced so far. They're all just Bitcoin with some parameters changed.. except maybe PPC coin, but I don't like the POS system.. Though I do like seeing how the different strategies play out..

IF I did write a coin, which I have considered, it's going to be COMPLETELY different.. from the ground up. THAT I would like to see. Something truly new and dare I say it, original ?.

BUT [cough].. I'll probably have some kind of low fixed fee built in..   

I hope I can show it to you someday. You never know..

This doesn't take into account that security is the MOST important part for some of us.. I wouldn't switch because i would want my coins kept in the most secure network. Not the cheapest.


True, true.. and yet..

Well, actually as I'm sure you know, in April 2013, 1 billion dollars (in bitcoins) was sent over the network.. At 0.1% that would have paid the miners 1 million dollars just in TXN fees..

Would that make the network MORE or LESS secure ? Would miners be MORE or LESS interested in being part of that network.. ? Surely it will incentivise the miners in the right way ?

OK - I can see we are not going to agree :-) BUT i just want it known, that for many of us, a HIGHER hashrate, better networking, and a more secure network, is really important.. not trying to squeeze out the cheapest transactions possible. A coin that did have a fixed fee, and rewarded it's miners in a MORE predictable way, would be a feature for me.

There is a lot of talk about what should/might/may happen, when the TXN fees ALONE (basically) will need to pay for the network, and I hope that happens, but does a little push in the right direction really hurt SO MUCH..
 
I'm going to call it quits now..
 

Fizzy-Cola-Bottle anyone ?

I'm feeling a bit queasy.. eaten too many sweets..

hello.. sorry.. just one more thing..

I quote some guy - http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be

'I read that the market will find the equilibrium how much these transaction fees will be.

It will not. This is perhaps the biggest flaw in Bitcoin at the moment: once mining rewards end there is no direct linkage between the amount of hashpower needed to secure the network and the incentive to mine.

True, there is a limit on the blocksize, so if the transaction volume in a block window (approximately 10 minutes) exceeds the block size you can expect a miniature "auction" where transactions fight for space in the block by bidding up the minimum transaction fee needed to get in. However this isn't really a closed-loop adjustment: the maximum blocksize is an arbitrarily chosen number, and there's no reason to believe the maximum blocksize is small enough to ensure that transaction fees are high enough to incent enough miners to mine to keep the system secure. Unlike the difficulty and the USD/BTC exchange rate it does not respond to market activity. It also has the negative side effect of capping the worldwide Bitcoin transaction throughput since other parts of the protocol rely on the assumption that blocks are created -- in the long run -- no more than once every ten minutes.

As the mining reward is reduced this "direct coupling" between the network's need for security and the incentive to mine becomes progressively more diluted.

I worry a lot about what will happen to Bitcoin once we decouple those two forces. I think the developers ought to at least come up with a story on how this will be solved so people can start testing it.
'

I think he makes a valid point, better than I made it..  and I wanted to point out that this issue is far from clear/certain/set-in-stone to everyone.

Thanks for listening.

Now, where's that bag of sweets...

HA! Ok.. Children eating too many sweets and being sick it is!

They'll learn the hard way. Just as we will. Maybe that is the only way there is.

 

Hmm.. I mean Children in the sense that they are not informed about all the facts. Is that not a requirement for a free market to work correctly ? Total Information Transparency ? Which requires them to understand the information..

The Children don't know if they eat all those sweets they will damage their bodies, get fat, rot teeth etc etc.. If they did - they'd think twice about it. And 'happily' choose to only eat a few.

PEOPLE are the children.. in a nice way..

Hmm.. Forgive me, but is that not the same as this..

We let Children into a room full of sweets. They will eat as many sweets as they can before they are sick. They won't eat more than that, as they will be feeling ill, and won't want any more.. The Market will find a balance.

Yes this is true, but where is it said that this is the BEST AND ONLY way.. ?

People  do NOT understand the complexities of bitcoin TXNs. They just want to send their money. IF they were perfectly informed about the PRO's and CONs maybe most would choose to pay. But they will not be perfectly informed.

When asked if you could transmit your coins for free, OR pay a tiny TXN fee and help the network be more secure, how many will pick the former over the latter ? I can imagine that MOST people will go for the free option, of course..

Whereas if they weren't given a choice, and told that they had to pay 0.1% fee, MOST wouldn't bat an eyelid.. and say, That's fine.

It just seems that we are giving a choice were the NON-Obvious choice , pay a small fee, has very little against it and WILL make an ENORMOUS difference to the health of the network.

I can see how this goes against the whole FREE-MARKET thing, but don't people need to be BETTER informed, which they WON'T be, to make a GOOD decision ? Could that be the problem..?

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but many FREE-MARKETs have crashed because people are not mathematical objects, that don't have to behave rationally. They're human after all.. 

 

HAHA!  Yes!

Thank you..

All in the SPAM folder...

I have to disagree..

I think it is simply NOT reasonable to expect the network to deal with FREE and/or very low tXn fees for really large txns...

I know we can leave it up to the miners and they will come up with a value that meets their demands and the demands of the users, but that will not be as secure as the users want it, and it won't be as many fees as the miners want. It'll be somewhere in the middle..

If the protocol said, it's 0.1%. full stop. The miners get a nice fraction, that always grows proportionally, as the usage of the network grows. They will be paid well, and the network will be VERY secure.

I am not interested in arguing over 1/1000 of a percent. I want to give it to the miners and have a secure network.

All I know is that right now, the fees are NOWHERE near enough to pay for the miners.. https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit

And they will have to go up.. A LOT.


This is true, but only if we find that there is a disparity in the txn amounts in the blocks.. I don't know what the ratio is, but the mathematician inside me reckons that in a global economy they would be pretty standard on average.. But I don't know..

(Throwing a few ideas out here..)

What if we find the 0.1% txn fees are always high enough to make mining worthwhile ? Or maybe the network difficulty needs to be a bit more dynamic in nature.. OR maybe the difficulty could be in some way linked to the txn amout of the block.. hmm.. maybe not..

What i'm saying is there may be other solutions - with the eventual GOAL being - Happy Well-Payed Miner / Secure Network.




 

Hmm.. not if there is a minimum txn fee..

The MINIMUM TXN fee would be the same as bitcoins. The miners would always have the same incentive or MORE.. if 0.1% was more than that txn fee.

That's EXACTLY what will happen.

That's why I'd like it built into any new protocols.. 0.1%.

Just to be clear - I would like an email sent to me.. when someone replies to the topic.

And yes, I have set the settings in my profile.

Is that possible. ?

Hi,

Not sure if anyone else has noticed/experienced this, but when I click the NOTIFY me button on a topic I am interested in, I never get notified..

My email is correct.

Am I doing something wrong ?

Hello. This is a lively debate..  

I'll be honest, I kinda agree with Sweft, that the txn fees are NOT going to sustain as secure a network as I would like..

I don't want more than 21 million coins, I like the whole FIXED-amount-of-coins thing, so that only leaves the txn fees.

What I'm wondering is : If txn fees were set to a percentage of the transaction, say 0.1%, would this not fix the 'potential' problem ?

1 1-thousandth seems a fair price to pay, for a functioning super secure network.. no?

I don't know why everyone is so against paying the miners A LOT. They are the backbone of the whole network and should be rewarded..

I am working on a new coin, and would like to put a fixed percentage as the fee. Remove confusion and doubt.  

You would of course also need a minimum TXN fee, to stop DOS attacks.
..

[cough] Don't all shout at me at once.