So, this time instead of gold we will have Bitcoin (which will be hoarded as per Gresham's law) and inevitably all kinds of "paper" derivatives actually entering the circulation as a means of exchange. These "papers" allegedly backed up by Bitcoin will in fact leave behind them only inflation, even despite Bitcoin intrinsic deflationary nature...
And welcome back to fiat!
It is the epic idiocy of a "scarce" currency. It incentivizes the SOS with FRB. Besides that and much sooner, there will always be alt-coins inflating the supply regardless. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint, a chain which is changing the rules as you say will not affect the chain that is not changing the rules. Neither can or will build off of each other, thus the "longer" chain cannot delay transactions on the shorter chain. If the longer chain diverts hash power to the shorter chain, then it is the same old boring attack as the 51%.
|
|
|
|
If he had any decency he would offer a buy back at 0.2, save some of his name, show that he has belief in the site... and he would still be 5 millions good.
He does not. Stop asking for realsolid to be decent. It. isn't. going. to happen. He's a scumbag. |
|
|
|
Well well Atlast you will be riding on my coattails since I opened up the mindset in this forum for your (and others') altcoins. Over the top and all.  So please don't thank me when the door hits me in the butt.  Your argumentation skills are terrible and you are not doing yourself or any alternative currencies any favors by screaming until you're red in the face that you're right. No one responds well to that, even those that may not be indoctrinated by bitcoinomics yet. |
|
|
|
it's definitely believable that the exchange is simply overwhelmed and it's probably really difficult to find capable help for something like that instead of him doing seemingly all of it.
Especially when you're a scammer that is trying really hard to remain anonymous. |
|
|
|
I am a technical neophyte. However, the vast majority of technically sophisticated people that I have read do not share your fatalistic outlook on bitcoin. Every time you make your argument against bitcoin, someone rebuts you. It is true, you could be the only one who sees reality. But I think that might not be the case.
Objectively, it is very hard to be objective when pointing out bitcoin's flaws could hurt you very heavily in the wallet. That is not to agree with AnonyMint as he is often way too over the top, but appealing to authorities who have lots of skin in the game is not a great argument. |
|
|
|
|
Well, well, the prodigal scammer returns.
|
|
|
|
yes this is probably right and it makes me sad. though if there was an elegant solution than this than this idea could offer great advantages. I'm going to keep thinking on it. It's still a valid starting point for an idea. And on the contrary to AnonyMint's arguments, I agree it is a significant step forward in block chain decentralization. However, if the initial distribution of currency is top-heavy, big holders could leverage themselves into a position that might be hard to dethrone, especially if they keep receiving their own tx fees back. But with a well-distributed currency, I think your point that the benefits will not outweigh the costs definitely holds water. Definitely no free tx allowed though, or at least free tx are not included in the lottery. Require 100 blocks or whatever before they get their tx fees, and if a miner catches another tx block from the same person, those tx fees should be destroyed or distributed to other tx blocks. Unfortunately this would be REALLY hard to get distributed consensus on since their failed blocks would not be part of the blockchain. This is actually an easy problem to solve. Miners would only be including a hash of a tx block and a signature anyway, all they would have to do is include the second hash and signature as proof of deception. |
|
|
|
I've been thinking and thinking and thinking and the ONLY solution i can come up with is something like this.
If the winner of the randomly chosen key is not available than the runner up mints an insurance block, if the runner up is not available than 3rd place mints an insurance block ect... This can't really work, though. When do the runners-up decide to create a tx block? A lot of timing would be involved in a notoriously, unreliably timed system. Bandwidth isn't free, and sending tx hashes still requires a not insignificant amount of it as well as searching for the transactions in memory or on disk. So you can't just have everybody sending a boatload of tx blocks. I don't think there is an elegant solution to avoiding the delays of people not creating tx blocks. Perhaps being selected for the lottery is an option that can be set to true/false with each tx, that way those on low-bandwidth or rarely connected connections can opt out. Also, you shouldn't refer to creating tx blocks as minting. Minting implies creating new currency when this is receiving tx fees as payment only. The next person in line must chose a block to build ontop of. If he publishes multiple transaction blocks the one that will be accepted as valid is the one that is furthest from matching. Inorder to incent him not to pick the one with the key that is closest to its hash, he would recieve a bonus. the closer the key is of the block that he builds ontop of to the hash of its corresponding mining block, the higher his reward. I don't follow what you're saying here. You do need to provide protection against the winner creating multiple blocks though to eliminate the DoS attack of data overhead described above as well as easy double spend opportunities. Require 100 blocks or whatever before they get their tx fees, and if a miner catches another tx block from the same person, those tx fees should be destroyed or distributed to other tx blocks. |
|
|
|
If you're here to argue the topic of the thread, then "Are terms pyramid scheme and ponzi scheme misused?" Yes, by people like you. Please point me to where I've misused the terms. Otherwise, kindly fuck off. |
|
|
|
Here's another one for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phrase?s=tAnd I understand fine, you don't seem to understand how Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme or a scam. It has nothing to do with colloquialisms, people are using the term of Ponzi/Pyramid schemes incorrectly. Madoff committed fraud by a Ponzi scam and got people to invest with cash for shares, so are all cash and shares a scam? No. You can use cash or shares for a scam just like you can use BTC, but Bitcoin in itself is not a scam. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I am here to argue the topic of this thread, not whether or not bitcoin is a scam. Can you possibly separate the two concepts? |
|
|
|
Ponzi is a word. Scheme/scam is a word. It's not a ponzi or pyramid scam/scheme. It doesn't fit the definition. Are you saying that it's only going to be a ponzi scheme/scam if in the future the value or BTC goes to zero or tanks? That makes it a failed investment not, a scam.
"Ponzi" is not a word, it's a name. I will also say yet again, since you don't seem to understand, that my point is that the terms are being used colloquially to denote a monetary scam. Arguing that bitcoin property X does not meet a textbook definition of a specific type of monetary scam does nothing to argue against it being a monetary scam. Calling it an investment does nothing to argue against it being a monetary scam. Madoff provided "investments" too. A decentralized scam does not make it not a scam. This argument over whether or not the terms are being used correctly is the textbook definition of a red herring. |
|
|
|
It's not pedantic to use words correctly as defined. Except that they are not words, they are phrases that arose from specific scams to become more general terms for monetary scams. Buying Bitcoin is an investment and you can win or lose but that doesn't automatically make it a scam.
I didn't say it did, I said that someone calling it a pyramid or ponzi scheme does not automatically make their argument irrelevant because bitcoin does not fit some specific definition of a pyramid or ponzi scheme. It is a bitcoin scheme, and whether or not it is considered a scam is for future history books to decide. |
|
|
|
I wonder if you could elaborate on what economic issues it does not address. No, I've spent enough time on that sort of thing. No more talking, now is the time for doing. At some point the currency supply should stabilize as the marginal value of securing one unit of currency becomes higher than the value of new units produced. So inother words, at some point we will reach a point where the unit of currency is worth so little that people lose more than the amount thats being created. then when too much is lost the value goes back up, people work harder to secure the currency and the amount lost is less than is being produced. then the supply keeps oscillating up and down across this line and eventually the amount lost due to carelessness finds a steady predictable equilibrium with the amount of new currency being produced. It seems like a pretty awesome model for maintaining a steady currency supply to me so i would really like to know what it fails to account for.
You're losing me here. You can't make any economic basis on how many coins are "lost", it is irrelevant compared to the change in velocity of money. The other option is that miners do not hash transaction blocks, and instead just hash previous hashes + their public key, and if the owner of the randomly chosen key is off-line than everyone in the network just waits 4 minutes for a confirmation instead of 2.
You can't do this because then no one needs to keep track of the history of transactions, thus no one is required to have proof of who should be creating the next tx block. |
|
|
|
|
Whether or not the pyramid or ponzi scheme terms are misused by pedantic definitions does not provide an argument against bitcoin being a * scheme. It is a "bitcoin scheme" which closely resembles a pyramid scheme but has a few twists.
|
|
|
|
The idea of mining empty blocks to improve security is an excellent one. The core benefit is that you can have extremely rapid confirmations w/o latency issues.
You can have extremely rapid confirmations of already confirmed tx. On the other hand, if whoever is selected does not create a tx confirmation list out of a pool of everyone who has a tx in the last 2-3 years, you are waiting for an additional mining block--and potentially many more. However, the amount of data required to monitor this is small, which is good (although lite nodes will have to ask a full node who is the closest--this could be a vulnerability). Overall, a very huge boon to decentralization, one I espoused with the very first encoin proposal over 2 years ago in that transaction security needs to be separate from money creation. This part is going to get a lot of my fellow libertarians in a tizzy but please bear with me until i finish the argument. The block reward for miners would never be lowered, it would be a constant amount for ever. You mean bittardtarians, not libertarians. There is not a fixed supply of money in any sane school of economic thought. However, there are many economic issues this still does not address, but that does not detract from the fact that this simple idea is probably a lot better than how bitcoin currently works. |
|
|
|
Do you mean that the more one talks about an altcoin, the more interest it gets?
Or are you implying something negative about me?
Or both?
Neither, I meant sarcastically exactly what I said.  |
|
|
|
I will aggressively out any scam coin in order to keep the market open for bonafide altcoins.
Oh I am sure that is going to work well. |
|
|
|
No ones tasted the pie yet, it's not finished...unless you like to take pies out the oven half baked and have a bite.
So are you going to release concrete information on how eMunie will be protected before you start taking money from people? Or are we going to remain at the same point we were 6 months ago with absolutely nothing? Because that would be a scam. |
|
|
|
I'd like to first completely understand the simpler case. I think you already understand the simpler case. I don't think anyone has yet provided a strong argument that Bitcoin wouldn't make the world poorer if it was the main global currency. There have been some hints at some possible arguments. The hints are inane. "I will save until I have enough, then I will consume which is an economic net zero [presuming investment of non-saved real value increases as a result of this saving], or I will invest which is usually a personal net negative." One silly side pretends that this saving will cause economic output to respond more sensibly, while the other side says economic output remains relatively unchanged because of the increasing value of the rest of the currency. These are obviously at odds. If bitcoin could somehow be the one world currency, then there is possibly an argument to be made for the former (but the counter is that it is silly that idle money earns the productivity of others). However, because of the nature of it being deflationary, it may have the exact opposite effect where all investment is high-risk and highly destructive to provide the quickest profit turnaround, regardless of other costs, and which applies to both arguments. Unless you think the business cycle is a key component of the argument either for or against? No, but it is the next step, I think. A lot of bitcoinomists tend to borrow heavily from Austrian ideology where the key to a happy, healthy economy is one where the business cycle's effects on productivity are as low as possible. Although these arguments haven't really started yet in this thread, they are usually the next step as to how bitcoin solves problem X after a "simple" analysis such as yours seems to show quite the flaw. If want to borrow 100 BTC from you and I can guarantee you a 1% real return which comes from real value produced, you won't make that loan because you can get a 3% real return by just holding bitcoin, and the world will have to do without that 1% of genuine value that I wanted to produce.
Implied but not stated that you are actually losing nominal value by investing. Quite the conundrum. Anyone who states anything about time preferences in relation to saving-but-not-investing bitcoins is quite clearly outside of any school of Austrian economic thought as saving is implied to mean investing. Hayek even wrote some very interesting stuff on what it actually means when saving means saving-but-not-investing. You may find this thread interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110708.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
