You consult BTConomist and BTConomics to get an alternative perspective on the GOLD 2.0 nonsense that most are still buzzing about. Who knows, maybe it will help you relax a little and enjoy the ride? Welcome to the community!

Когда для pump and dump игр выделяется около трёх миллионов долларов, то всего можно ожидать.

Подробное описание trust функции: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0

Скажите, а ради этого вы бы согласились прокатиться до экзотических мест западного полушария, скажем на недельку-две, а то и на целый месяц? И если да, то во сколько BTC (без учёта текущего USD/BTC курса) вы бы оценили такое мероприятие (со всеми удобствами для полноценного удовольствия: питание, проживание, гиды/кураторы и т.д.)? На данном этапе интересует некая общая сумма в BTC, которую вы бы не пожалели заплатить за конкретный период времени, но без учёта расходов на самолёт, т.к. билеты будет проще приобретать отдельно за рубли (в зависимости от сезона, стоимость полёта в обе стороны колеблется от 35,000 до 65,000 руб). Рассматривайте это мероприятие как организация специализированного курорта для биткоин сообщества (с персональными VIP привилегиями, программами и т.д.)... Минералочки не желаете?!

Имеет, но только для более приземленных целей чем желание поживиться пылающим азартом биткоин спекулянтов.

Убедительно! ... Но будут ли такие цифры по вкусу тем, кто не считает разумным платить в несколько раз больше реальных расходов по добыче биткоинов?

Not exactly... For this to happen, every single bitcoin must be able to buy, on average, $50,000 worth of goods and services at any given point in time. So, if you can imagine the possibility of a future where there will be plenty of merchants selling $1,050,000,000,000 worth of goods/services for bitcoin on a regular basis (and not merely transferring those coins into fiat currencies on the spot), then it's very likely that bitcoins would reach a valuation of $50,000 each.

Isn't it possible to color any coin in the blockchain? Does it have to include the Genesis block only?

A bit technical, but a fun and easy read nonetheless:
http://james.lab6.com/2012/01/12/bitcoin-285-bytes-that-changed-the-world/

Why do you and others still assume that when I'm discussing deflation or inflation I refer to BTC exchange rate fluctuations? Remember, I don't speak the GOLD 2.0 dialect... I speak straight up BTC!

Are you interested in learning how to speak proper BTC (will be offering classes soon)? In the meantime, may I suggest that you take maximum advantage of the GOLD 2.0 era exchange rates.

Here's a nice little overview of why Ripple is a risky proposition.

Exposing the Ripple Scam: OpenCoin Inc's Cash In on Bitcoin's Popularity

This sounds a lot like a Swoopo's (a.k.a. Telebid) business model for gambling.

Thanks for confirming that I have correctly interpreted the second point in SgtSpike's answer. Unfortunately, this now means that I have to go back to the drawing board and figure out at what point it would make sense to add more decimal places in order to avert an inflationary spiral that will eventually result from lost coins (if we ever succeed at building a flourishing BTC-based economy around the bitcoin protocol).

I know that the issues I'm trying to bring to the miners' attention may appear somewhat odd at this point, but please take note of the inferences that I've made throughout this thread, as understanding them would prove essential in a miner's ability to take maximum advantage of the GOLD 2.0 era we're passing through right now. I don't think that it will be years before I can finally share (in layman's terms) what had clicked in my head after I came across one of Gavin's old tweets, back in 2011 (see a hard copy below). It's just I haven't yet found a professional writer (with background in bitcoin and economic theory) to help me put the right words on paper, so to speak. Why would I need a professional writer? Well, as some of you may have already noticed, any attempt that I take to construct a structural argument around BTC money supply (not monetary base units, a.k.a. raw bitcoins) it only seems to take everyone's attention away from the main points of that argument... It appear that I'm just not cut out for explaining intricate things in prose.

I'm afraid it's not quite that simple... You see, a single bitcoin that gets seeded into the BTC-based economy has the potential to grow BTC money supply (not to be confused with BTC monetary base of 21 million bitcoins) by 100,000,000 BTC (i.e. your average satoshi, but in a consumer-friendly notation). So, assuming that the BTC-based economy will eventually flourish, can you imaging the ripple effect an act of trashing a single bitcoin could have on that economy? This is precisely what I was hoping everyone here would look into, from a technical perspective (i.e. the resilience of bitcoin protocol to withstand such threats, if there were ever to be one), rather than focus their attention on bashing my concern as being invalid. My concern is just as valid as any other concern before it, even if it came about as part of diligent economic hacking, not code hacking. So, could some of you please take a look at the technical side of this -- is there an infinite loop (as perhaps was suggested by our very own SgtSpike) that a rouge miner would have to contend with when trying to carry out this type of an attack? Because if there is an infinite loop, then there's nothing to worry about -- bitcoin is poised to make history!

I didn't yet see anyone confirming whether I had correctly interpreted point 2 in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199542.msg2079488#msg2079488

Sorry if that statement sounded a bit misleading from its intended purpose... I merely tried to passionately imply that I can't move forward with my plans to do something great for the bitcoin ecosystem (as the early bitcoin developers once did for the bitcoin protocol and client), unless those knowledgeable about the bitcoin technical side can help clarify the issue that nearly has me loose hope in the bitcoin's viability as a currency.

One is used to induce inflation in a BTC-based economy (in economic sense, not GOLD 2.0 sense), the other (the unspent one) is missing an opportunity to propel the creation and development of a BTC-based economy in order to induce deflation. Assuming that the majority of miners 1) will eventually come around and realize that the GOLD 2.0 era was just a myth, and 2) finally turn their attention to growing the BTC-based economy by commissioning various deflation-inducing projects, the right amount of trashed coins in the future could have just as serious of an affect on the BTC-based economy as the 2008 financial crisis once had on the global economy (except this time around we will be battling inflation, whereas in the 2008 financial crisis we were battling deflation, due to difference in the underlying economic theories for fiat-based and bitcoin-based economies).



Neither one would exist if miners would stop focusing so much on bitcoin being GOLD 2.0 to continue driving up the exchange rates and mining difficulty to new highs. Basically, miners can put an end to both of these threats by starting to commission the deflation-inducing projects (e.g. make investments in BTC, pay wages in BTC, etc -- essentially, use their might to jump-start the BTC-based economy without the help of financial intermediaries). Pay-it-forward already! Stop banking on the next GOLD 2.0 hype to create demand for your math-based treasure-trove. Remember, it took you almost 2 years to recover from the very first such hype. Yet, the current one is way bigger.

C'mon guys, have a little faith in the validity of what I'm trying to bring to your attention here. Remember, I’m still at the early stages of trying to put into words what has been creeping in my head since I first took a long, hard look at bitcoin back in 2011. But I know this much already --- the GOLD 2.0 vision that the majority still continues to talk about is dead wrong when it comes to the inner working of bitcoin-based economy. It won’t give you neither deflation nor inflation (not to be confused with bitcoin supply of 21mil bitcoins). So, instead of going back and forth with me about the “BTC spending” vs “BTC hoarding” debate, see if you can clarify the second point that's been brought up by SgtSpike... Or we can just wait for him to clarify it himself. Either way, I'm not leaving this issue alone until someone from the tech circles is able to clear up my concerns about the potential effect of coin trashers on the viability of bitcoin protocol. It's the only thing holding me back from jumping full force into this whole idea of developing a self-sustaining BTC-based economy.

It may not be of any concern only if bitcoin's future rests on the idea of BTC being used strictly as a store of value (and not as a viable currency), which, let's face it, won't come from anywhere other than the increase in demand for products and services priced and sold exclusively for BTCs (e.g. satoshiDICE, etc)... No other form of developments around bitcoin would be able to keep the exchange rates above some miniscule margin over an average mining cost per bitcoin (whether that bitcoin is generated as part of a new lottery block, or as a cumulative total of transaction fees in a block, assuming that all 21mil bitcoins have already been mined).

And what is an average mining cost per bitcoin these days... about 3-4 dollars a pop, I assume (with equipment amortization and labor included)? And wouldn't you also say that this cost is bound to decrease as better equipment becomes available in the future (Moore's law et al.)? So, it's apparent that bitcoin miners would eventually focus their attention on financing BTC-based projects that drive increases in BTC spending, or would be forced to turn off their mining rigs (since it's unlikely that there will be anyone left foolish enough to pay 30-80x over something that costs less than $3 to produce). What would you do in that situation?

As you can see, large profits in bitcoin economy would no longer be made from mining operations per se, but from revenues of projects that a mining operation once helped to jump-start and turn into a profitable BTC-based business. (Hope you can forgive me for attempting to bust your GOLD 2.0 dreams this early?... It's just I want BTC to become a "viable" currency, not a "virtual" one.) As such, having at least one solid confirmation that "coin trashing" poses NO threat to the bitcoin protocol would do a great deal to further my cause, as I've already started laying the foundation for a BTC-based economy.

Sometimes to win (say in a currency war scenario, perhaps politically driven) a group may choose to loose a battle in order to later win the war... Basically, if loosing money in one area would gain you more in another (i.e. one that matters to you the most), you'd do it in a heartbeat, wouldn't you? Because of this I'm not yet able to accept your mining costs inference as a feasible resolution of this potential threat to the bitcoin network. Perhaps you can clarify further?