I thought the exchange downtown had some reps there to help you with the wallets etc? Kind of like bank clerks.
There's Bitcoiniacs at Waves, and the Bitcoin Co-op guys in Gastown. I suppose those are options too. But this individual is mostly interested in price speculation as part of a diversified investment portfolio. I'm not sure it's important for him to learn about bitcoin wallet security at this point in time. Perhaps that can wait. that doesn't sound too wise. Bitcoin is meant to encourage personal responsibility. plus it will make him learn and appreciate what Bitcoin is all about. speculation on the price is somewhat dependent on one being able to hold onto one's coins w/o getting scammed. Get him to buy a Trezor*. If it's more than play money he's talking about it's not a high price to pay for peace of mind without needing to delve into the depths of the pros and cons, complex processes and precautions involved with the mass of on/off line options there are out there. I'm definitely with cypherdoc on this one. The idea that it may 'not [be] important for [a newbie] to learn about bitcoin wallet security' from the very get go is surely asking for tears further down the line. One of the main points I talk about in any introduction to Bitcoin (usually whilst waiting for a Piper paper wallet to print off that they pressed the button on that I'm going to send 25 mBTC to) is the importance of understanding the challenge of both keeping a private key from hackers and of keeping it such as we don't lose it (forget passwords etc) ourselves. I usually also use Andreas Antonopolus's story about humans from when someone first wanted to keep a squirrel he'd killed till the following day learned to keep physical stuff safe (hiding stuff is even in the squirrel's DNA) whereas we're useless at backups and security on the whole even though we know we should be more diligent because it's just so new to us. I don't think owning small amounts of bitcoin on unsecure or make-do wallet solutions encourages someone to learn about security. There are too many other exciting things about bitcoin to be reading up on. I believe losing bitcoins is what prompts us to learn more and do better. If it's just token amounts that's brilliant but more often people don't step up the security as more value is put on a wallet (or the holding increases in value) and that's a precarious position to be in. This is the trick I use with people like that: I say "If you are not ready to sit down and pay attention to me for half an hour, this is not for you at the moment." It works by activating the opposition reflex.  Emphatic yes from me! Even with my careful explanations people sometimes ask as they leave: 'So if I don't spend this for some time or if I lose it you get the bitcoins back do you?' Those of us familiar with the Bitcoin paradigm and the uncrackability of strong cryptography in general are so used to it it is easy to forget how alien a concept it is to most that a lost or stolen passphrase/private key is the end of their bitcoins. * or a Piper Wallet printer |
|
|
|
There is no incentive to hold onto the coins and as soon as the are "air dropped" mass dumping ensues.
...
Just look at how hard all the air drop coins have failed, and how the free distribution Nxt clones have failed. It doesn't take much logical reasoning to deduce that that is what will happen to Aethereum too.
There is plenty of evidence of this occurring and may well occur in this instance. However it's not like they're being dropped to a population of a country where most have little knowledge and see no promise in crypto. Nor can they be claimed en-masse for the purpose of dumping by those currently with no stake in crypto. The point is they'll be going to those who have a record of valuing crypto so the dump/hold/increase-holding decision is more likely I think to be taken according to the potential value seen in the technology of the spinoff, in this case Ethereum. Ethereum will not suffer from that problem, as all Ethereum owners will have invested something of value to get their portion of Ether.
True there can not be in this instance a heap of people ready to dump immediately on launch given the money paid. ...This will provide a deterrent from all Ethereum owners dumping on the market for anything less than what they invested in it...
An initial deterrent maybe but given the IPO price was plucked out of thin air none of us has any idea which way the market is likely to go. ...which will uphold the value 1000x better than getting Aethereum for free will.
'uphold' is a tall order! The Ether price may initially settle at a very different place from the IPO price and if that's a big fast drop and those who bought at IPO prices are seeing their investment drop away they're just as prone to panic selling as the next man. Whether or not this happens, when it does initially settle, just like Aethereum, the price will move according to the longer term value seen in its technology. My assessment is the case is by no means as closed as you imply. Jury's out and in the meantime I'm really intrigued as to how this might pan out |
|
|
|
I am joining this bounty with 1 BTC
I'll pledge .35 btc too (the same as I've just spent on 700 ETH). I much prefer the spin-offs approach but also realise there's a lot to figure out yet. I guess cash incentive may add to the motivation of those capable of making this happen which is why I'm chipping in on this one. So I'm backing two horses in this race And yes, I'm up for making my bounty pledge official on Buntysource or wherever Thanks thoughtfan. I updated the bounty post to show the new total of 2.35 BTC. I suspect there might be some more pledges, and then perhaps we could move the pledged funds to a multisig 2-of-3 address controlled by 3 trusted members of the forum. Refund TXs could be issued instantly for all pledges using N_LOCKTIME where N_LOCKTIME defines the deadline for winning the bounty. I should also point out that the bounty (at least as I specified it) did not require any particular coin to be cloned--just that the clone had to achieve sufficient adoption as evident by the number and magnitude of claims that were made and as evident by the spin-off trading on an exchange. I suppose we could revisit the exact requirements to claim the bounty if more people are interested in contributing. Thanks for the proposal and clarification Peter. I prefer a multisig means of pledging with a time limit and am happy to go with that. I did understand and to confirm, yes I am happy with the 'any spin-off' criterion, in that it may well be something other than Aetherium. |
|
|
|
I am joining this bounty with 1 BTC
I'll pledge .35 btc too (the same as I've just spent on 700 ETH). I much prefer the spin-offs approach but also realise there's a lot to figure out yet. I guess cash incentive may add to the motivation of those capable of making this happen which is why I'm chipping in on this one. So I'm backing two horses in this race And yes, I'm up for making my bounty pledge official on Buntysource or wherever |
|
|
|
Im not sure either of these will make it. They both have huge deficiencies in the fair distribution department. The situation reminds me of Bytecoin with it's innovative technology appearing on the screen but 83% already mined and concentrated in the hands of only a select few. Monero simply had to clone it with a fair launch and became CryptoNight chain #1 overnight.
A successful 2.0 coin should embrace that lesson and implement a fairer distribution model to keep gathering followers and remain fair among its competitors.
If a 2.0 release is the way to overcome the initial distribution issue would launching one as a spin-off do the trick (though I'll admit I don't know how that would work with a PoS coin)? |
|
|
|
|
I know we're only at the beginning stages of the required coding but I'd like to throw in a further consideration:
I understand part of the impetus for developing this idea was the premine issue with Ethereum - hence the æthereum proposal. However, given the magnitude of the investment in Ethereum it is likely at least some in the Ethereum team are very unlikely to be welcoming of æthereum which potentially undermines their investment.
May I propose therefore that a potentially co-operating dev team be approached first who are working on an altcoin where there's a fair chance they might embrace the spin-off idea for launching or re-releasing their coin on the merits being put forward in this thread? In this way at least to start with the coin dev team and the spin-off technology dev team would be working together rather than a more adversarial relationship that is likely to ensue with spinning-off Ethereum.
|
|
|
|
...
I want to be very clear that this bounty isn't really "live" yet because we haven't defined exactly what this piece of software should do. So bounty hunters should communicate with us in this thread so that everyone is on the same page in regards to expectations.
I'm just wondering whether using CIYAM might be an appropriate means of allocating and managing bounties for this project? I'm uncertain exactly how it works and am not affiliated. I'll post a link to this thread to Ian of the CIYAM project to see if he would like to explain and maybe offer to get involved. |
|
|
|
...
My reaction is strongest on the claim window because I think that is the most grossly redistributive (against people who do not choose to "wake up" and claim their coins within the time window). As D&T said, with a greenfield design you can do whatever you want, but some of those things are redistributive, and some are not. This one is. Clearly that is the case when there are comments about wanting to eliminate a potential "overhang" of coins.
Again I'm not certain that the non-redistributive spin-off approach is necessarily the best, but one should recognize redistributive variations for what they are.
There are also those with physical bitcoins or other irreversible/impractical long-term-cold-storage means of managing private keys who would be disadvantaged by timed cut-offs. Obviously sooner or later if a coin that turns out to surpass bitcoin and/or even supplant it then those holographic stickers will need to be peeled off the Casascius coins but if it came to that it would be accompanied by great relief on my part that it was launched as a spin-off rather than as an alt that I missed out on completely! ...
I was also seeing the parallel with the discussion of bitcoins on inactive addresses. There's also the matter of physical coins and long-term, not-easily-accessible cold storage wallets. As Peter says, it's not possible to stop people releasing spin-offs with a time deadline but the arguments can be presented here in such a way that a consensus may be reached by all other than those who want to cut out 'old money' and they are in my guess less likely to get involved with spin-offs in the first place hoping the idea will not catch on!
Despite the possibility that I am flogging a deceased equatine, there is a difference between reclaiming "inactive addresses" and a greenfield project which puts the requirements for a claim upfront. Imagine Satoshi had decided that to limit blockchain growth that an output which is unused for 1 million blocks is considered invalid. I would see no problem with keeping it that way. Anyone creating an address would be aware of the limits of the system in advance. Changing Bitcoin now to reclaim "inactive addresses" is unethical as it is an ex post facto change. A new coin however that uses the bootstrap as of Bitcoin block 300,000 and requires claims to be made before "newcoin" block X has no such ethical risk. The rule is known at the point of launch (actually it probably will be known well in advance of launch). Nobody is suggesting excluding valid unspent outputs (except maybe very limited scenarios related to feasibility). If Satoshi wanted to claim x coins in a spinoff he certainly could do so by creating the appropriate signatures. If he doesn't and the claim window passes then he is making a choice to exclude himself. The only reason I bring this up again is I feel there may be some confusion on what is being considered with a claim window. The claim window would be on the spinoff (i.e. claim outputs are only valid before block X) it wouldn't exclude any particular bitcoin unspent output. Apologies D & T. I had not read your point on this when I responded (I had forgotten I had more pages to read of this thread!) - hence deleting it after I'd read it. I acknowledge it is very different in that the cutoff point will be known in advance and all claiming/trading will be done with this in mind - as opposed, as you say, to reclaiming 'inactive addresses' which is ex post facto. I still believe whatever the merits or otherwise of using the distribution of bitcoin as the means of distributing the new coin it is lessened when introducing a tool that has such a radical re-distributing outcome. |
|
|
|
As Bitcoin proponents, is it not a little hypocritical for us to criticize "pump and dump" as something only applicable to alts and not Our Coin?  Great point Risto. Now that I've witnessed and felt the full lifecycle of a true bitcoin bubble (aka "rally") I know now that a pump and dump is exactly what a bitcoin rally truly is. Supply greatly contracts while demand goes through the roof, but it's only temporary. Do the bitcoin fundamentals really change in that one 3-4 week span that happens every 6-8 months or so? No, only the perception of the adopters. Luckily we have btc holders and thus network growth (otherwise btc bubbles would just collapse completely), a new higher exchange rate settles in and takes hold, and everyone adjusts to the new "normal". Wash, rinse, repeat. I disagree. A rally may temporarily takes us above what the market will sustain prior to it falling again. This includes successfully executed pump and dump schemes but is not limited to pump and dump schemes. But what you described above is an aggregate demand caused by buying which could be for all kinds of reasons; for many it will simply be panic buying by people who have no intention of selling fearing they may miss the boat. Again, a pump and dump has a rally but not all rallies that consequently correct are pump and dumps. If you look up 'pump and dump' you'll find they are commonly described as frauds (spreading rumours/fud to manipulate the price) in conjunction with pumping the market by buying and in regulated markets are illegal. Even a whale buying (bitcoins, altcoins or a stock etc) with the express purpose of driving up the price to draw in the sheep and then sell at the top is not by that definition pumping and dumping if there is no fraudulent element (such as spreading misinformation etc.) let alone a market that shoots up and corrects with no collusion or manipulation, such as what you were describing. Of course there's no shortage of conspiracy theorists here claiming every big move to be a manipulation e.g. many here would swear PBOC used FUD to drive the price down to buy in but that's another matter! |
|
|
|
As Bitcoin proponents, is it not a little hypocritical for us to criticize "pump and dump" as something only applicable to alts and not Our Coin? Of course Bitcoin was and still is vulnerable to pump 'n dump. However, the numbers of players in a big enough league to have a significant influence is decreasing by as the volume increases whereas for the newer alts anybody who has done OK from bitcoins or is coming into this game with a reasonable amount of money can play the game, the bigger the stake, the lesser the odds of a bigger fish trumping your pump 'n dump game and catching you out. The fact the central and private banks (as nicely illustrated by the revelations about Barclays) are doing it with gold shows us nothing is entirely safe from pump 'n dump. My point was that with so many alts come into being with the express purpose of being used as a pump 'n dump vehicle, of course posing as something new and interesting, and with those playing to ride the waves up and down not caring which are potential contributors to advancing the technology and which are not, it just makes the whole scene very difficult to guage for so many that potentially valuable technologies may inadvertently get left unnoticed by the wayside. For me, the ideas around bootstrapping bitcoins seem such a no-brainer. It clears the flack out of the picture so we can more easily see what is there. There may of course be an element of my being lazy, wanting to have the advantage of playing with and exploring alts without having to risk any of my bitcoins! But at the moment I do think ideas such as spinoffs have some validity. And I'm preferring treechains to sidechains. Also, just so y'all know, I've never bought nor mined an altcoin. |
|
|
|
...
2. How do you know without a doubt that it will be one of the current list of alt coins that will Bitcoin's successor? Why not some alt coin that hasn't even been invented yet? And if it is possible it will be an unknown future coin that may not be around next year or even for the next several years, then wouldn't investing in any of the current ones be pretty worthless right now?
For me the high risk that the 'the one' to dethrone bitcoin (acknowledging of course the reasonable chance there may never be one) is not amongst today's vast offering of altcoins does not only mean it's a waste of money to invest in them, it's also a waste of time trying to keeping up with what is going on with them, which ones actually bring something new to the table etc etc. It is why I'm liking ideas such as sidechains or spinoffs as a means of providing a space in which to experiment with innovative ideas whilst taking out the pump 'n dump aspect to which all alts are prone irrespective of their potential value meaning that something with a great potential among so many may get dumped to oblivion and the ideas behind it lost. I am going to defend here some alt coins.
First, Is Altcoin the correct name for another different coin? Sure there are many that just replicate some parameters, add some variation and are launched to the market for the next pump and dump, i don't even name that altcoins, i call those shitcoins, but there are coins out there that provide interesting approachs to different problems, Memorycoin brings a vote system in the same wallet that to some extent could be used to decide software development team or some coin "foundation" <hint> decisions, maybe the rest is not interesting. Reddcoin is going to release a Proof of Stake based on money velocity to help itself as a competitor to doge as tipping coin on social companies motivating users money velocity (share coins). Will it succeed? Vertcoin, Myriadcoin and X11 coins have brought differences regarding the mining approachs and the existance of Asics, Dogecoin as ridiculous it might appear brings some fun to teeneagers (nice market niche)? Gridcoin has an interesting approach bringing all the mining power to BOINC Berkley university Software to help research cancer, cells, molecules, etc. Next is a different breed and maybe it can teach some other coins about just the wallet design with messages, p2P exchange, and almost instant money transference. Counterparty brings P2P exchange aswell other approaches the same as Bitshares, Ripple brings the scam of the premining at a corporate level as we have seen a couple days ago and so they should be ashamed ;-)
Second, as Software engineer i could say that is more difficult to apply software patches to a system that has higher risk, has bigger spread and different userbase. You have to test things much more, consequences are way bigger, many more circumstances have to be thought of. It is also not the same to immediately install software update in a bank or in a hospital as immediately install a software update on a shoe shop.
Bitcoin as it grows will probably suffer a little from that. Can Bitcoin be hardforked right now? Will be easily hardforked in the future? That brings some doubts, but as the dinousaurs the bigger it gets the response time might decrease. Just that alone could bring a case for the existance of altcoins as an evolutive sandbox where multiple developers (95% with only a pump and dump objective i agree) bring some ideas to the table.
Are Darkcoin/Monero or the like pump and dump scheme? I think like in many situations things are not black and white, where Bitcoin is a pure innovative technology and any alt is just a pump and dump. There are many grayscales. Some bring some interesting ideas to the table and there are medium term investors that appreciate those, some short term and also traders just surfing the waves. If you check Karpelescoin (just an example) probably it will be a pump and dump and unless you are the pump and dump organizer you will be severely hurted there. But if you invest on a coin that is fast, anonymous (it might be interesting for some coins in some countries is even a fundamental right to have some privacy and not publishing your bank movements on your blog), has several security algorithms comparable to SHA-3 (so you don't discover in 10 years that NSA was quite involved on bitcoin or other one) well there might be a lower percent of pump and dumpers and probably many more investors bringing money to the market and making a coin surpass others like peercoin, etc. I have used that example but i think there are interesting approaches on many other coins.
Finally, I cannot recall many companies, technologies that have not had a competitor after some time. Are Mercedes-Benz or Audi alts of Ford? Is the WWW an alt of Gopher? Is Chrome an alt of Mosaic?. Is IBM still the only producer of Personal Computers. Are still compuserve and MySpace the only kings on their respective niche markets.
I am heavily invested on Bitcoin and as "It's about Sharing" has just mentioned, i only invest a very small amount on alts, less than 5% but i think it is scary and even risky to think that Bitcoin is going to be the only cryptocoin in the future. When I invest on Google shares i pay a lot of attention to Oracle, to Apple, to Yahoo because those are competitors and from the competitors you can learn and sometimes you can receive a good lesson, i will not dismiss a good idea just because it comes from a small team or because i want bitcoin to succeed (although some would just not agree on a bitcoin forum).
I'll also quote this for those who missed it last page because I take my hat off to you telemaco for doing the vast amount of research you must be doing to keep on top of this and am grateful to you for summing it up thus. I am not generally anti-speculation but I think it causes severe problems in the altcoin space and masks potential real value that may be hiding in there (and though I get your point I will keep calling them altcoins for now) and look forward to a means (whether it's spinoffs or whatever) of bringing new ideas into the arena coming into being which takes out the destructive pump 'n dump element. |
|
|
|
My fear is as the realisation dawns on the bigger players that Bitcoin is 'the one' that it will be pumped by banks and central banks who can magic large sums of fiat into existence with which to buy bitcoin (and who may even dump gold temporarily), creating the ultimate bitcoin megabubble so that billions of latecomer ordinary people and businesses buying their first bitcoins will be shafted as the great bitcoin dump starts, into pms, into land, artwork etc. into a 'better' crypto - assets that had been neglected for the period bitcoin was so attractive, even back into fiat (they could use this point to launch more 'stable' 'new crypto-dollar or new crypto-pound etc.) until bitcoin finds a stable long-term pricepoint well below (even orders of magnitude below) the hyped price the masses bought at. Problem is of course nobody beforehand can know what this price will be. We would still be in a much better world than today because with bitcoin established fiats (old or new) will not be that attractive but if central banks are deliberately hyperinflating forcing people into crypto on their pump stage people could end up with 1000th of what they had before.
...
If that happens we might not end up with the assets / bitcoin and all the stuff in the most desirable hands, true. However what makes me have a positive long-term outlook (for humanity, I personally might be gone by the time we see the fruits of this) is the fact that we will then have transitioned to a sound money regime, which should have the effect of a fairer, more level playing-field and much a more efficient economy that puts much less strain on our human and natural resources than what we currently have (the fiat-fuelled continuous growth paradigm that keeps producing these cancerous escapades and keeps hurting us). So even if entities that don't "deserve" it end up with the most wealth initially (by the way you described), after the transition is complete that wealth will dissipate from them if they make bad decisions towards the people that make good decisions. If they make "good" decisions on the other hand, they get to keep and grow their wealth, and rightly so. Noone will be bailed out by the taxpayer as is the case now (no more inflation tax) and everybody will suffer or enjoy the consequences of their actions, as should be. I hope it'll work out and I hope I'll be able to see and live it, too. Crypto is our best shot at this. This view may be simplistic or even naive, but for lack of better options I hold it (and bitcoin, too ;-) ) I agree molecular and am happy that the longer term will be free of the consequences of the weaponry fiat money has provided governments with to wield against the governed. I'm beginning to think though that I have been naive in thinking it would all happen fairly smoothly. I had previously been quite dismissive of the doom 'n gloom scenarios painted where disenfranchised fiat bag holders are literally up in arms against the new wealthy in a kind of apocalyptic scenario. However I'm now thinking the transition may be rougher and with much more suffering than I had previously thought. What got me dismayed just in reading Risto's 2 billion reference was the idea that though not a pyramid scheme, the timing and price of buying-in for the vast majority may end up that they lose out big time. |
|
|
|
...
My fear is as the realisation dawns on the bigger players that Bitcoin is 'the one' that it will be pumped by banks and central banks who can magic large sums of fiat into existence with which to buy bitcoin (and who may even dump gold temporarily), creating the ultimate bitcoin megabubble so that billions of latecomer ordinary people and businesses buying their first bitcoins will be shafted as the great bitcoin dump starts, into pms, into land, artwork etc. into a 'better' crypto - assets that had been neglected for the period bitcoin was so attractive, even back into fiat (they could use this point to launch more 'stable' 'new crypto-dollar or new crypto-pound etc.) until bitcoin finds a stable long-term pricepoint well below (even orders of magnitude below) the hyped price the masses bought at. Problem is of course nobody beforehand can know what this price will be. We would still be in a much better world than today because with bitcoin established fiats (old or new) will not be that attractive but if central banks are deliberately hyperinflating forcing people into crypto on their pump stage people could end up with 1000th of what they had before.
...
Extrapoloting... In the same way that morpheus tells neo that he won't have to cash out at BTC $10000 (or whatever). Neither will the big guys have to. I think when if the time comes that BTC is inherently worth that much its too late to worry about buying or selling it (from a speculative investment POV) its more about how much you have (how much you got when the getting was good). So I don't think there will be a final crash, I think this line of reasoning justifies the 'exponential pulse' pattern we see now. The value that fiat represents (if its going to) won't smoothly migrate from fiat into BTC. If its going to it would likely follow this pattern as people get in cheap and then take profits. All the profit takers do is delay the inevitable, the transfer of wealth continues, and gets ahead of itself. When I saw it the first time, it seemed like a bubble that burst. The second time I thought wow, it did it again, the third time I thought, this is ridiculous, this kind of repeated behaviour is entirely without justification and absolutely will not continue. And yet here we are all wondering whether this is the next one. Many here will be as cynical as I. Pah we;ve seen it all before, like anyone is going to get suckered into this silly pump/dump cycle again. (Just like we thought last time?) How many millions of people out there are still entirely oblivious to all of this and ready to fuel this go-round? What about the next one? Is this really 'institutional investors' stage? Strange times. The 'final crash' idea is a new one to me and I would like to think it won't happen. But: If the big banks and central banks realise bitcoin is going to happen whether they like it or not; If some of the world's wealthiest are beginning to put serious money into bitcoin both increasing its value and devaluing the fiat they're taking it out of; If they are realising that it's game over for the fiat game as has been played for the best part of the last 100 years; If they know they currently, but if they're not careful temporarily, have more buying power than anybody else; ...why they would not deliberately pump, forcing everybody out of fiat only to then diversify into pms and other assets at the top, deliberately dumping bitcoin to promote their new fiat currencies? It will be their last chance to keep as much of their advantage (in terms of relative wealth) because the days of 'magicing' money into existence will be over. Thinks will end up getting complex very very quickly.
Build your supernode on time. Sign up for the Malla conference in June 27-29.! Been really busy Risto and not going to make it to Malla this time. Good to hear the development is going well All the best with it. Look forward to hearing the reports. |
|
|
|
According to my research, the average sum a person would invest in bitcoins is $1000. Therefore, 4 million new users are needed in addition to the 1 million current ones to reach $7000.
That seems like a lot to ask for the next 7 months. I think chances are some bigger investment funds are going to have a big impact though. That is only 25.8% monthly growth in userbase. Which happens to coincide with the long-term slope of the price appreciation curve. With this adoption growth, without the logistic slowing, we would be at 2 billion people in March, 2017. My suspicion is before we get anywhere near 2 billion people using bitcoins that there will be factors at play that will dwarf the impact on price arising out of adoption and its use in day-to-day transactions. My fear is as the realisation dawns on the bigger players that Bitcoin is 'the one' that it will be pumped by banks and central banks who can magic large sums of fiat into existence with which to buy bitcoin (and who may even dump gold temporarily), creating the ultimate bitcoin megabubble so that billions of latecomer ordinary people and businesses buying their first bitcoins will be shafted as the great bitcoin dump starts, into pms, into land, artwork etc. into a 'better' crypto - assets that had been neglected for the period bitcoin was so attractive, even back into fiat (they could use this point to launch more 'stable' 'new crypto-dollar or new crypto-pound etc.) until bitcoin finds a stable long-term pricepoint well below (even orders of magnitude below) the hyped price the masses bought at. Problem is of course nobody beforehand can know what this price will be. We would still be in a much better world than today because with bitcoin established fiats (old or new) will not be that attractive but if central banks are deliberately hyperinflating forcing people into crypto on their pump stage people could end up with 1000th of what they had before. Btw, I'm only just exploring this idea so please point out if there's an obvious reason this is not how the future looks! |
|
|
|
...
My worry is that there might not be enough of those people for us to reach critical mass and get the inertia to carry this through to adoption by the masses. The kind of people whom when you mention bitcoin, they start to glaze over because you are making them confront their fragile world view. People don't want things to change, they don't want to think. They just want to go about their business. Those are the people that could end up being the deciding factor as to whether BTC becomes new money, or remains a niche system on the edges of the internet that only dreamers, radicals and geeks ever use.
I disagree that these 'glaze over' people are those who are going to make or break wider acceptance of bitcoin. If it is a good enough speculative vehicle for substantive liquidity (that we may well be heading towards with SecondMarket, ETFs etc) then as a means of 'clearing' intra-bank and intra-currency I believe it likely to prove of value. Also in the meantime, outside of countries where, despite the abuse of banks and central banks, our currencies are for the time being relatively stable and it's fairly easy for most of us to get bank accounts there is an immediate use for it - especially as the service providers are beginning to mature and offer easy integration with apps and even SMS-based products. And my current assessment of something else coming along and taking over if Bitcoin doesn't dominate quick enough is that the odds are moving towards the eventual dominating technology being bitcoin-based i.e. integrated into the existing (such as with the potential of treechains) rather than a competitor, whether altcoin or another competing technology, making bitcoin itself irrelevant. As a little note of caution one should be sceptical of my neutrality in making such assessments given I am heavily invested and therefore like many here prone to many of the investment biases! |
|
|
|
I will never be as rich as you but I will be nearly as rich as you if I put all my bitcoins in 1 satoshi wallets  The ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ blockchain (codenamed 'underdoge') would be a snapshot of the bitcoin blockchain as of yesterday Either way works for me - and I'm not the only one with a substantial number of smaller denomination cold-storage wallets. You could of course try and ascertain which small denomination wallets belong to larger holders and rank them accordingly but you won't be the first to have tried this. What I'm saying is by all means give it a go. It sounds like a fun experiment. Just don't be kidding yourself, and don't think others will buy into the idea that there is some inherent 'justice' into doing things this way. The Beatitudes are to me the ultimate platitude* but your plan may be almost as ineffective in real life as the biblical claim! * Sorry, it's a bit poor but I couldn't resist the alliteration after my earlier Beatitude reference. |
|
|
|
ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ = Clone æthereum and reverse the distribution.
I have 0.0 BTC. Therefore, all ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ that will ever be mined from now on until distant future belongs to me. I will never be as rich as you but I will be nearly as rich as you if I put all my bitcoins in 1 satoshi wallets |
|
|
|
I suppose you could say that a "spin-off" converges to a traditional launch as the pre-mine approaches zero. Or conversely, that a "spin-off" is the best-practices generalization of a traditional (zero pre-mine) launch when zero-premine is not feasible (e.g., PoS).
Does this apply to etherium? I'm not sure I'm following your question. Is (a clone of) Etherium a case when a zero-premine is not feasible? There are plenty who are proposing it. That's both the beauty and confusion of open source alts at this stage of the game. We could end up with Etherium -the-original-with-premine, a number of zero-premine clones, at least two spin-off versions (æthereum and ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ) and one or more side-chain versions! |
|
|
|
...having read the last 400 pages of this thread, it is still unclear to me what the long-term trend will be. So it is hard for me to decide whether to wait in BTC or in fiat.
Seriously? If you're wanting to establish the long-term trend of bitcoin, it doesn't matter how many hundreds of this thread you read you won't find it here! The hourly and daily, even weekly or monthly price fluctuations are a side show - and the commenting here a side-show on the side-show (fun though it may be. I hung out here and absorbed, posting less frequently with time for the best part of a year). I would suggest using a different means of establishing what is worth reading to come to a decision on the odds you want to give the success of Bitcoin as a technology, then bitcoin as a currency. Once you know how that translates into the total you are prepared to risk, assuming it is not zero, decide if you're not all in and hodling, what proportion of that money you want to play with to see if you can increase your bitcoin holding. I would warn if you were serious with your 'why should I miss out on the swings?' comment you are showing how you have failed to grasp in 400 pages of this that trading is a zero sum game. You have apparently gotten the impression from all this reading that most people here, or most people trading are doing well. You would do well to really question that assumption! Fear of missing out on what you think looks like an easy way of making money is likely to make you an unsuccessful trader. As a side note I am one who has bought and hodled and the cost of this, especially when I was a regular on this thread, was that I had to live with not knowing the answer to whether I would have been a good trader or not. Could I have increased my bitcoin holding substantially by actually playing the trading game all that time I was reading? I kinda think I could have but at some level I know the odds say I would have ended up with fewer bitcoins than I have. tl/dr Don't think most who daytrade end up winning and that it is easy for you to do likewise. If you do decide to play the trading game don't do it till you have decided where you stand on bitcoin's long-term future and if you're in, don't trade with anywhere the whole of your holding! |
|
|
|
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 Peter implied this is the test that will accelerate the process of separating the wheat from the chaff according to the value perceived in the new alt by cutting out the pump 'n dump element of launching whilst taking out (for how many is yet to be seen) the perceived injustice of premine. It makes a 'wait and see' policy for bitcoin holders a more reasonable option because there is no fear of missing out on being a low-entry early adopter. The mad scramble at the launch of something which is seen to have potential is taken out of the equation. The direction of the movement of price after launch will quickly tell whether more perceive value in the new (or replicated) alt than who consider it not to be bringing anything substantive to the table. Whilst it does give bitcoin holders more time to decide there will still need to be enough demand in a reasonable amount of time to bring the price up to something that is attractive to miners. At the same time, depending on how well the first spin-off launches go, like sidechain alts, this could also take everything other than play money out of the traditional alt market thus making that less attractive to miners. Time alone will tell and one of the reasons I like the whole spin-offs idea is that it is an inexpensive experiment with not much at stake.
I bet the paupers try to sell their free coins but no one cares enough to buy them and the value immediately goes close to zero.
æthereum princes would attempt to buy up all the ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ to preserve their position as the elite in possession of the highest valued assets. The fundamentals of the technology would have been tested already, and the æthereum princes would know ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ was ultimately going to have a larger network effect as there are more paupers than princes. But many paupers aren't stupid, and wouldn't sell. I think ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ would be the new Doge Blessed are the bitcoin poor, for they shall inherit the ɯnǝɹǝɥʇæ Why not give it a 'spin'! Place your bets ladies and gentlemen! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
