so hold on....
If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?
Is this the idea?
please read Peter's Principle in the OP and tell us why the current market-based blockchain distribution is wrong or unfair. |
|
|
|
|
The other ludicrous assumption here is that you know exactly what addresses Satoshi owns.
Please provide a list and amounts with proof. don't get it wrong though or else there could be a lot of angry people showing up making the accusations of you stealing.
The Peter Principle (like that one?) is that it's elegant and easy to do. Yours, not so much, as there could be many errors.
|
|
|
|
did you answer my hypothetical question above about Satoshi showing up publicly? would he be right or wrong in your book? what would you say to him?
just curious.
there is still a disconnect here between us. For some reason you are under the assumption that SN is entitled to some particular portion of any altcoin just for the sake of his being SN. Your stance indicates that some altcoin creator is not free to choose an distribution method he desires, and to let the free market prove if his method was sound or not. If SN showed up Id tell him its neither right or wrong. you are asking the equivalent of, say, if the color orange was right or wrong. it is neither. it is just orange. Lets say that you were a genius coder/mathematician/crypto scientist, and you were coding a brilliant new cryptocurrency that had novel new code and some other chain-esque structure that was superior to the BTC blockchain. This new system had the capability to compete HARD with bitcoin. YOUD BE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND to give, of all people, SN, the creator of bitcoin, the ability to wreck havoc in your new cryptocurrency. Also, you are operating under the illusion that the free market happily and conscientiously decided they could trust SN, when in fact this is not the case because when BTC is the only game in town, you either play it or play nothing at all. its not until up until recently have the altcoins really come out hard. playing the game may be trusting SN, but in no way is it happily and conscientiously deciding to trust him. Can you answer my question as to what is it about the distro method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without? Lol. The only disconnect here is your putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I've plainly said multiple times. Go right ahead and create your altclone minus Satoshi and try to market it as a Bitcoin blockchain distribution thats fair. Peter will then release his version with Satoshi. I think you lose (not will lose) because of all the principles Peter has already delineated. And yes, I'd publicly make the argument against your altclone that Satoshi could show up claiming your scheme was an attempt to more greatly enrich yourself and other Bitcoiners. You'd respond just as vehemently as you have. Who cares? Let the market decide. You made the argument that people are greedy. Well that applies to Satoshi himself I presume. Therefore, by your logic, he should show up publicly to accuse you of stealing his distribution, right? And not only do I think you have not given me a satisfactory answer as to what you would say to him but I think that would be enough to tank the credibility of your altclone. |
|
|
|
how do you get from this: Let's revisit a topic discussed (what seems like) ages ago. Bitcoin price is stagnant; dark pools are back in vogue. We are seeing a two-tier value structure emerge just as there exists with gold. Observe the former to understand the mature market of the latter.
Bitcoin really has two different trading markets. Silbert spoke about the two-pronged bitcoin exchange market, which is really comprised of a consumer market with millions of people who trade through Coinbase or BitStamp, and an institutional market, where buyers and sellers are moving large blocks of bitcoins “off-exchange.” Silbert said that Bitstamp is the typical reference point for those off-exchange transactions. Somewhat intuitively, he confirmed that when bitcoin prices are rising, those off-exchange sellers demand a price premium to BitStamp; when prices are falling, buyers demand a discount; in stable environments (like recent weeks), the BitStamp price is pretty much accurate.
SourceAmidst the backdrop of a dramatic price drop for bitcoin in the past week, Barry Silbert announced that his Bitcoin Investment Trust recently broke the 100k BTC mark. So as Chinese investors firesell their remaining bitcoin, the institutional investors continue to pile in. Silbert acknowledged at the Inside Bitcoins conference that the reference prices most of us retail investors use at Bitstamp and BTC-e, may not necessarily reflect the true prices commanded in “off-exchange” transactions. In environments where skittish retail investors are selling and US institutions are trying to amass enormous positions, I believe the true bitcoin price may be higher than the one we see on CoinDesk.
SourceSound familiar? Replace Bitcoin Trust with China and it should. to this?: The transition is in progress and far from complete; metals are still with us for years to come, whether we like it or not.
Silbert said in downdrafts like we've had the last 5 mo, institutional investors will pay lower prices than Bitstamp. in ramps, they pay higher. in flats, they pay the same. |
|
|
|
let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain. those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive. you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires. This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else. Or he could distribute them all to himself. Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi. or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC. or any other arbitrary fashion. I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not. But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous. the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with you misunderstand me. i said somewhere above that all issues of fairness, ethics, and morals don't belong here. i'm content to let you start an altclone in any way you want. i'm just arguing for the method that i think will win in the marketplace. and it isn't the one you're advocating for which involves eliminating some perceived risk from Satoshi. you are either backpedaling or changing goalposts. before, it was "its not fair to satoshi, he is being robbed." now its that you think that if you were to publish, at the same time, 2 altcoins that are technically identical, and with distrib schemes that are both based on BTC blockchain public keys except one doesnt include satoshi's accounts, that the one with satoshis accounts will win out. Humanity's greed tell me that you are wrong. But I could be missing something here, and be mistaken. So tell me what is it about the method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without? did you answer my hypothetical question above about Satoshi showing up publicly? would he be right or wrong in your book? what would you say to him? just curious. |
|
|
|
let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain. those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive. you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires. This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else. Or he could distribute them all to himself. Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi. or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC. or any other arbitrary fashion. I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not. But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous. the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with you misunderstand me. i said somewhere above that all issues of fairness, ethics, and morals don't belong here. i'm content to let you start an altclone in any way you want. i'm just arguing for the method that i think will win in the marketplace. and it isn't the one you're advocating for which involves eliminating some perceived risk from Satoshi. |
|
|
|
I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.
nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining. you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009. not his fault. you're missing the whole point of this proposal. no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's. thats a strawman. yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency. you seem to be hung on a "people keep saying its not fair" thing by your 2009 phrase. but I do miss the point of your last 2 sentences there. no one ever said anything about stealing anyones coins. or are you saying that if someone did a distro method but left out satoshis public addresses that this would be "stealing" SN's altcoins? surely not... let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain. then Satoshi shows up publicly and says, "hey, you guys stole my fair share of the altclones." would you say he is right or wrong? what would you say if we did that to your claim? |
|
|
|
I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.
nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining. you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009. not his fault. you're missing the whole point of this proposal. no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's. |
|
|
|
Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space. and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation. he is human after all and he hasn't died.
none of us want that right now.
So your argument is because Bitcoin has powerful actors that have far more power over the currency than the fiat wealthy elite, we should bow down like the good peasants we are? Boy, this is looking better all the time. no, the argument is that it's the fair thing to do given this whole concept. you just chose to ignore everything else i wrote in the preceding post and just focused on the possible consequences. |
|
|
|
Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions. Which one will be successful
Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space. and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation. he is human after all and he hasn't died. none of us want that right now. |
|
|
|
|
in case no one noticed, i just came up with a better name for these things than Spin-offs: Altclones vs. Altcoins.
the coming war.
|
|
|
|
This distribution method would give Satoshi control over every market, not just over Bitcoin's market.
no, the same % of the altclone market that he already has in the Bitcoin market. |
|
|
|
Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment. Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;allThe short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin. Thanks for the link. Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored. As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved. I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month. Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted. If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted. you're exactly right. the only way to do the distribution is to adhere to Peter's proposal of distributing the altclone in proportion to the Bitcoin blockchain on an agreed upon date in the future. one of the main goals of this brilliant strategy is to make the entire Bitcoin community comfortable with the project by only having to focus on the potential innovation of the altclone. and that includes Satoshi. to presume he's dead or lost all his keys is stupid. to presume he'll dominate every market is incorrect. he'll just have the same % of what we all have already. we want maximum support of the Bitcoin community based on the distribution of the current blockchain. if for say, Peter decided to take half of Satoshi's portion as a bounty for his efforts that would immediately introduce an unhappy response from some Bitcoiners who would then not support the whole concept by calling it unfair. we want all Bitcoiners to relax and fully support the altclone and not feel threatened by it taking over. to Peter's credit, he ignored a suggestion in my gold thread about him doing just that; taking half for himself as some kind of payment. let's hope he adheres to that. |
|
|
|
|
we need the Bitcoin PPA to be updated to 0.9.1.
unless someone could publish a clear, coherent way to compile the Bitcoin tar.gz
|
|
|
|
It's nothing less than naive idealism to assume that Bitcoin will be allowed to go around unchecked by governments. They will not allow it.
Here's another tangent on holder psychology: What is this slave mentality? The governments are not our parents giving us "allowances", they exist to serve the people and they're doing a damn bad job these days. It's time to separate money and state!like i said, it's a religion. |
|
|
|
for additional "perspective", one could overlay btc price. or do an Update. zerg. |
|
|
|
For the people here who are questioning the "fairness" of this proposal, I ask you to reconsider your assumptions after analyzing the economic incentives at play here:
Let's say you truly believe that a proof-of-stake (PoS) system is better than a proof-of-work system and the market would be wise to adopt this if only given a chance. When the PoS spin-off launches, many bitcoin holders will dump their "free coins" at say a valuation equal to 0.01% of the bitcoin market cap. This means that for an investment of X BTC, you could amplify your wealth by a factor of 10,000X if you are correct and PoS becomes dominant. You would be rewarded for your insight by natural market mechanisms. You know most bitcoin users will remain impartial (they will be holders by default) so your PoS coin will naturally have a wide user base if it is in fact useful.
Spin-offs also benefit the community as a whole:
-Bitcoin users that remain impartial to the experiment should appreciate spin-offs because they automatically get piggybacked to the new network with little effort on their part and without risk to their cryptocurrency wealth.
-Alt-coins doubters should appreciate spin-offs because they represent free money that they can immediately dump on the open market.
I think that "fairness" is irrelevant, nothing is fair. This is likely inevitable, so as market participants we need to evaluate the likelihood of various scenarios, and spin-offs make grass-roots alts look potentially weak. At the very least this mechanism could create such a vast amount of alt-chain spam that the whole alt community could be rendered valueless, except those that actually offer tremendous innovation. yes, fairness and ethics discussion have no place here. only the free market can and will decide if what Peter proposes is correct. |
|
|
|
Who will be bothered to mine and secure the network if they can get crapload of coins for free?
who will mine after they spent all their fiat on an IPO? When a lot of coins are given away for free, their value is close to zero. So mining it won't pay the electricity, you're paying fiat to mine it. When there is an IPO, i.e. people pay for the coins, therefor the value of the coins is higher, and mining it can actually pay for the electricity. the point is, ppl should mine based on the merits of the tech. if there is merit, i could argue they'd be more likely to mine aether since their sunk cost is 0 from the free distribution.
Sure, a few enthusiasts will do that. But the large farms won't, so the network hashrate will be very low and susceptible to attacks making it an unsafe investment. as a miner, i can tell you that all miners don't necessarily mine efficiently. i mine for speculative reasons; mainly to hold coin for future appreciation even if electricity costs result in losses in the short term. this strategy has worked out well for me with Bitcoin. if aether prices are low and results in low difficulty, fine, i'll just mine more aether than i would otherwise. but i would only mine if i thought there was merit to aetherium or etherium (they being functionally equivalent). |
|
|
|
You're a hudge fund! HUDGY HUDGY HUDGY HUDGY HUDGY HUDGE FUND! Hudge fund, hudge fund hudge fund hudge fund. Hudge fund? Hudge fund hudge hudge fund. Hudge fund! .....Hudge Fund! hey, supurduh has lots of u's in his name. all vowels are u's to him! btw, S3052 claims he's successful at day trading. that means we all can do it! seriously, i make a spelling typo and give some guy a heart attack or something, he goes bonkers. to be fair he could have been sniffing cocaine at the time he read my post. that would also explain his typo and flat out gibberish it's gubburush |
|
|
|
why the hell is the stock market SO volatile? they promised us:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
