Wingding
I have read your other posts
I think this discussion is very interesting as it deals with one issue that i think BitCoin will have to address sooner or later: a hard fork
I was reading another discussion regarding regulation which questioned the same option, only this time the goverment/regulators might wish to hardfork the blockchain and create a 'safer' coin, one that can be traced and taxed. In return this coin might have legitemacy in mainstream exchange and buisness which could up it's value.
Now the question was: which side of the fork would most current bitcoin users choose. Regulated high cap or freedom low cap?
Same question here, people might be pushed to make a choice.
But does having a choice not devalue both systems?
This is interesting but off-topic  (non-technical) and deserves a separate thread. But my opinion in short is: Governments will certainly take the technology in use with FIAT money - sometime and somehow. But they will not care about intercepting bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I've always thought of this for a way to start an alt-coin. The fact that all bitcoin holders automatically becomes alt-coin owners could give it som traction. Or it would just give people some free fraction of bitcoins as they trade their alt-coin for bitcoins as soon as the first exchange opens.
You would have to change the algorithm to find blocks though or you will be vulnerable to a 51% attack from the bitcoin mining pools.
Does changing the algorithm have to mean it's not sha2 and does not fit new asics created for bitcoin or is there an option to change only the output req? My thought is to use merged mining. So it would be the same algorithm to find blocks. One have to rearrange the block data structure for the alt-chain, so that main chain transactions are part of the nonce. Similar to what (I think) they do for namecoin. |
|
|
|
I don't understand your objection. The coins that are valid on both sides of the fork have nothing to do with each other.
The point is that if you sign the transaction in one fork, the recipient can submit the same transaction to the main chain and also get your coin there. But how is re-broadcasting prevented in the main chain as it is? Re-broadcasting from where? You need the private key to sign the transaction. I mean, what stops the recipient (or anyone else) from submitting the same (and already signed) transaction over again? |
|
|
|
I don't understand your objection. The coins that are valid on both sides of the fork have nothing to do with each other.
The point is that if you sign the transaction in one fork, the recipient can submit the same transaction to the main chain and also get your coin there. But how is re-broadcasting prevented in the main chain as it is? |
|
|
|
I like your idea, except i would make a couple of changes.
1) Don't make it a fork of bitcoin, make it a new crypto.
2) Keep coin creation at 100, until the coin creation is less than an annual 2% inflation. Then have coin inflation adjust to 2%.
1. The reason to make it as a fork is that it would automatically include the bitconers and the bitcoin economy, which is something that I believe would increase chances to get acceptance. It also open the possibility the possibility for merged mining. 2. The rate of 200 per block is related to point 1 above: It means 10.5 millions new coins/year - the existing coins which are extremely concentrated on few hand will be reduced tp 50% of total volume after one year. But anyway, the idea is still in the shaping, and I am not holding to absolutes. I want others to contribute. And yes, I actually have been thinking that coin production rate could be increasing as you suggest, maintaining some inflation. But as you know, people around here goes crazy over the word inflation . You may also check this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179961.0 (I plan to make a updated version some time) Instead of increasing your block reward, decrease it... and speed up block creation by the correct amount... That being said, I think the only hope you'd have of making such an idea work would be as a merged-minable altcoin - I really doubt anyone is going to devote profitable hashing to something that's designed to lose value over time... (much less half it's value per year). I can assure you that bitcoin will lose purchasing power far sooner than an 2% inflationary alt coin. You know that it takes energy to discover blocks? It's not like printing fiat out of thin air. Those coins support miners who secure the system. Much like gold requires energy to mine. So what you're saying that gold loses value over time because more gold is mined? I have reconsidered your idea and I believe that the two properties that you have proposed may make an adoption or a fork less frictional. The reason being is that the fork will allow current bitcoiners to more easily participate in the network. The second thing that is beneficial is that since you have proposed to change block reward to 200 coins is basically nullifies the existing early adopter advantage and allows for a wider adoption of the future currency. Where we diverge in opinion is in the fact that I believe that there needs to be a point where inflation is controlled at a rate similar to that of Gold inflation, which is 2%. Well, remember that the 200 coin block reward fork will create a inflation starting with 100% the first year. It will take 50 years before it reach 2%. I think we need not worry to much about what happens after that. |
|
|
|
Usenet og internett skiller seg fra bitcoin fordi ingen eier dem. En svært stor del av de totale antall bitcoins sitter på svært få hender. Det virker mer som et pyramidespill enn en valuta.
Jeg ser du maler veldig på dette faktum. Noe som kan få tankene til å vandre til god gammeldags misunnelse. Har du sjekket noe opp hvor mye de som står bak Google er gode for ? Såvidt jeg vet er Google's Eric Schmidt god for 5-6000 millioner dollar. Således kunne man med ditt resonnement si at Google også er et pyramidespill (de som kom tidlig inn er de som sitter best i det, mens alle senere deltakere blir loppet). Bitcoin er ikke en business start-up. Det er ment å være en valuta. Helt feil å sammenligne en valuta med et forretningsforetak. Det er to helt forskjellige ting. Du tenker veldig sort/hvitt du. Noensinne fundert over å kunne klare å lese litt mellom linjene ? He he. Ja Herodes, jeg maler i vei. Men det må være lov, det mangler ikke på de som maler i den andre retningen. Når det er sagt, så vil jeg fortelle at jeg selv ble grepet av bitcoinfeberen også. Og jeg har eid et firesiftet antall coins. Så jeg er ikke noe skuffet taper, eller misunnelig som du antyder. Men jeg er idealist, og jeg ønsker en fri valuta, en reell utfordrer til det tradisjonelle pengesystemet. Jeg tipper at vi er enige om mye akkurat på det punktet. Jeg er også en sterk tilhenger av kapitalismens prinsipper. Noe av det jeg misliker i vanlig økonomi er at penger i seg selv er blitt et middel til rikdom. Finansøkonomien er større enn verdiskapende økonomi. Finanskrisen er ett eksempel på at å skape verdier ut av ingenting ikke går i lengden. Noen må betale regningen. Selv om jeg er skeptisk til bitcoin betyr det ikke at jeg misliker ideen og tankene bak det. Jeg har teknisk kompetanse, og det er få ting som har gitt meg mer kick enn da jeg leste satoshis paper og etterhvert forsto konseptet. Det er ikke riktig at jeg er unyansert slik du hevder. Jeg mener jeg er mer nyansert enn de fleste her på bitcontalk. |
|
|
|
Usenet og internett skiller seg fra bitcoin fordi ingen eier dem. En svært stor del av de totale antall bitcoins sitter på svært få hender. Det virker mer som et pyramidespill enn en valuta.
Jeg ser du maler veldig på dette faktum. Noe som kan få tankene til å vandre til god gammeldags misunnelse. Har du sjekket noe opp hvor mye de som står bak Google er gode for ? Såvidt jeg vet er Google's Eric Schmidt god for 5-6000 millioner dollar. Således kunne man med ditt resonnement si at Google også er et pyramidespill (de som kom tidlig inn er de som sitter best i det, mens alle senere deltakere blir loppet). Bitcoin er ikke en business start-up. Det er ment å være en valuta. Helt feil å sammenligne en valuta med et forretningsforetak. Det er to helt forskjellige ting. |
|
|
|
|
Usenet og internett skiller seg fra bitcoin fordi ingen eier dem. En svært stor del av de totale antall bitcoins sitter på svært få hender. Det virker mer som et pyramidespill enn en valuta.
|
|
|
|
He he... Takk for en morsom tråd. Det er lett å le av utalelsene til Osvold nå i ettertid, men så er det også veldig enkelt å ha rett - i ettertid Hvis det var lett å spå fremtiden så ville vi vel alle vært rike...eller kanskje ikke det nei. Nå er det ikke noe automatikk i at om noen vurderte internetts framtid grundig feil, så må kritikere av bicoin nødvendigvis ta like grundig feil. Jeg synes bitcoin-miljøet i stor grad er overoptimistisk med tanke på bitcoin. Selv om bitcoin er den første crypto-valuta ( å regne med, har sikkert vært forsøk før også) så betyr det ikke nødvendigvis at den vil stå løpet ut. internet Explorer var ikke den første browseren. Google var ikke den første søkemotoren. Facebook var ikke først med sosialt nettverk. Selv er jeg overbevist om at crypto-valuta er kommet for å bli. Men er veldig usikker på om bitcoin vil bli den som først får stor utbredelse. |
|
|
|
Can you develop a genetic proof of work that changes over time to prevent ASICs from dominating the ecosystem? Also how will you address transaction fees and the notion of colored coins? Are you writing a whitepaper like satoshi did to explain some things? I would be willing to help write code for you if we are philosophically aligned
See my original post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179961.msg1879143;topicseen#msg1879143It explains more of the motivation and philosphy behind the concept. Not the technical solutions. I started this thread here to get some opinions on the technical aspects - and I think many of the above replies raises interesting and relevant topics. If you like my philosophy, I would be happy to discuss more with you. All intelligible contributions are highly appreciated PS: Would not the appearance of ASICS be handled easily by the increased difficulty adjustment? Yes, they may come to dominate, but does that pose a problem for the system as such? |
|
|
|
you would have to give the fork/client a new name - what will it be? (i'm correct right?) Someone has already named it LinearCoin, (LNC) which at least serves as a good 'working' name. |
|
|
|
This includes Feathercoin, Bytecoin and a lot more
You mean it should be created first, mined only by a small group for some years, then be widely announced? Hmm..what coin could that be? |
|
|
|
|
I read on the Ripple wiki that there is 100 billion XRP, and that's all there's going to be. Does OpenCoin possess all those XRPs? I see that ripples are exchanged at 50 000 XRP/BTC in this forum. The value of all the XRP would then be 2 million BTC or approx $260 million. (today's rate)
So if the Ripple catch up popularity, those XRPs will be worth a lot. Is that the business idea of OpenCoin? (I do not understand Ripple fully, so if I got it wrong somehow, please enlighten me)
|
|
|
|
How to explain the difference? I would tell them litecoin is a little less ponzi than bitcoin.
"A little less Ponzi"? ... Wow. Um. I'm not going to engage you on that point. I would also tell them that if they want a medium for exchange of value, and not for speculation, they have to wait. So contrary to your line of argument, new coins and experimentation are required for general adaption to take place.
I know I couched my argument in terms of user adoption, but the thing we need more than anything else right now is merchant adoption (which is the "wait" in your "they have to wait.") And getting merchants to adopt one shockingly new and different currency will be a huge challenge; asking them to select one (or more) out of several or dozens will generally result in them adopting none. So, I don't mind that there's one big dog in the market right now. Anyway, my answer to your OP qustion, A permanent 50 BTC reward would have been much better. It would demonstrate more than a game of beeing in early. |
|
|
|
Anyone care to join me in this thought exercise? Why make it a thought exercise? Make a currency that does this, and see what happens. In part, because I think the fixed-supply model is stronger. In part, because to most users, this isn't noticeably distinct from the current Bitcoin model. In part, because I don't think a lot of cryptocurrency competition is necessarily good, this early in the game. If there's one clear winner, it's more likely to spur public adoption. For example, the a big "Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD" fight delayed (or at least reduced) general adoption of HD media by years. Or if you don't like that example, find 100 people on the street and (attempt to) explain the difference between Bitcoin and Litecoin. Now, ask them if having to make that choice makes them *more* or *less* likely to adopt one. How to explain the difference? I would tell them litecoin is a little less ponzi than bitcoin. I would also tell them that if they want a medium for exchange of value, and not for speculation, they have to wait. So contrary to your line of argument, new coins and experimentation are required for general adaption to take place. |
|
|
|
Another thing to consider is that as the price gets higher and higher, the market becomes harder to manipulate.
That's wrong. If icoins became more distributed, it would be harder to manipulate. However, it is likely that bitcoin becomes less distributed, since the large holders can easily manipulate the market today, and gather more coins. |
|
|
|
u say bubble i say easy money
Many of the people using or investing into Bitcoin today, are doing it as if Bitcoin were a "get rich quick" scheme. So it is'nt? |
|
|
|
I've been talking with a friend of mine for over two years about investing in Bitcoin. He is not at all interested. He calls it bubblecoin and has a point. Bitcoin will always trade at plus or minus 50% or more and will never stabilize. There is no plan to create any stabilizing factor. Simply expanding the user base will not stop people from pumping and dumping and causing panics. If this were true, then small countries would generally have unstable currencies and large countries would have stable currencies.
Price is psychological and there are no psychological tools to create faith in the price stability, nor is there even any discussion about it. Psychology, sociology, and economics uses statistics to create useful tools. Bitcoin uses "invisible hands" of the free market. Analysts use statistics to look at the market, but their results are not peer reviewed, nor even publicly available. Market analysts are the soothsayers of economics. We need a useful predictive tool for Bitcoin price that is useful for business.
There is a thread that collects different attempts to solve this problem [Stablecoin] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179918.msg1878011#msg1878011 |
|
|
|
Well... We shouldn't count these 1350 million people. It's minus 20% of possible Bitcoin userbase.
So more than 5000 millions remains to become users? Or buyers rather. How lucky for them that a small group of people already took the burden to produce the coins. Actually, the 5 billion new users can do with only 10 coins in total. Becuse bitcoins has the 'remarkable' property of beeing divisible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
