But my assertion is that any spending of a "pure" coin issued pre-fork is a valid transaction on both sides thus any spending on the inflatacoin side is harmful to the holder of the coin.
How in the world do you think I could influence the transaction in the old chain? Thats not possible. Actually, he has a pretty solid point. I missed it on first read. Any spendable BitCoins that existed before the form are spendable LinearCoins on the new fork. Stephen is pointing out that spending the LinearCoins from address "ABC..." creates a transaction that is bitwise identical to the one needed to spend the BitCoins at address "ABC..." Is that an intended feature or an issue? It means that your ostensibly pre-distributed LinearCoins exist in a strange state. If I send my BTC to Fred, my LNC goes with it. If I send my LNC to Fred, my BTC goes with it. On the other hand, Fred receiving the coins post fork WILL get two independent coins to spend. That's twisted The transactions on the new chain must not be valid on the old chain, and vice versa. So the old coins present in the new chain can only be spent as LNC. The two chains should then be independent after the split (or am I wrong here?) I think merged mining should not be possible, because it would be a strength to maintain a relation by mining cost and value of coin. As suggested in Etlase's signature. I think merged mining would disturb that relation. |
|
|
|
Hi, I am wingding. I appreciate very much the initiative taken here. I have scientific background in technology and have been reading articles from time to time about digital money since the 90s. (I also read Simon Singh's book about the history of cryptography, which I higly enjoyed and recommend) However, when I stumbled across bitcoins in mid 2012 i realized immediately that Satoshis brilliant work was it! This was the digital money that would work! It took some time before I actually bought some coins, but I was lucky to to do it before the real hype started. When it crashed down from 260 to 55 in a few days, I felt a really deep dissapointment and gloom. I did not loose any money, but I realized that this bubble thing is likely to happen over and over again. And that will prevent bitcoin from becoming used for online merchandise. I have described the issue more deeply here (with some nice graphs): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179961.0and a shorter version here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181488.0So my solution is not very fancy and advanced, but I think it will work, in the sense of keeping prices more stable and encouraging spending of coins and not only hoarding. |
|
|
|
Need a gun?
Thanks, but no, I just make a better cryptocoin |
|
|
|
I think there is a much simpler solution to the problem: constant increase in new coins beeing produced. Firstly, in the adaption phase where many people are getting in, the relative increase in volume would make hoarding less attractive In the long run however, the inflation will approach zero. I have proposed one way to achieve it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181488.0wingding would you post about you and your plan in this thread? I'm trying to keep an index off all the on going efforts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179918.0I checked your link. Great! And yes, I will keep you updated! (I got so much piss from other users just for proposing this thing - you wouldn't believe...) |
|
|
|
To the OP. Although it may seem strange at the moment, you will be happier later on knowing that you supported the Bitcoin economy.
Jesus Christ! So the 'bitcoin' economy is supposed to be a 'good cause' of some kind? Get a real religion! The only ones supported here are they who made all the coins when they were easy to produce. |
|
|
|
|
The people on Mars started using bitcoin long time ago. The are the early adopters.
|
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with this, on the contrary it seems like an excellent idea.
Your fork will have coins pre-distributed so you don't have the problems with early adaptors.
You could even apply some filter that defines which of the older coins are valid. Or you could exclude all addresses with more than X coins.
Do whatever that maximizes the spread of the coins and minimizes variance. The initial allocation of coins is one of the major problems that Satoshi had in his papers, and that is the reason for the constant rate given to miners. However with an existing economy you can utilize the dillution that has already happened to your advantage.
I think this is a superior way of bootstrapping an alt-chain to maximize the economy.
Yes, it is more or less what I had in mind. But that is another discussion and can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181488.0 |
|
|
|
Seriously dude? Thats mondo easy. take all the adjust values for unspent outputs and write them into the genesis block to the address they belong as coinbase txs. I was interpreting wingding's statement as describing how coins issued prior to the fork would still be spendable on the inflatacoin side of the fork ... that they wouldn't be touched (i.e., "harmed"). But my assertion is that any spending of a "pure" coin issued pre-fork is a valid transaction on both sides thus any spending on the inflatacoin side is harmful to the holder of the coin. A pure coin is one that has no taint from the coins issues after the fork, and thus would be a valid spend transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain side as well. Now I suppose you could ensure that the inflatacoin client included in every spend transaction some taint in the INPUTs so that the transactions would only be valid on the inflatacoin side. I still personally wouldn't use any coins with that client until they've been fully spent on the Bitcoin blockchain side, but after that I might milk the inflatacoin fork for whatever I could get from it, sure. Yes you understood me right, I dont have to create any genesis block. All oldcoins get included by beeing there. How in the world do you think I could influence the transaction in the old chain? Thats not possible. Appearantly your term inflatacoin suggest that this new coins would be subject to inflation. In that part you are wrong, and I believe you know it. Bitcoin had even larger rate of increase in its beginning. Remember that word inflation refers to value of the asset, not the amount. |
|
|
|
I think there is a much simpler solution to the problem: constant increase in new coins beeing produced. Firstly, in the adaption phase where many people are getting in, the relative increase in volume would make hoarding less attractive In the long run however, the inflation will approach zero. I have proposed one way to achieve it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181488.0 |
|
|
|
Actually there was a discussion about keeping coin generation rate forever at 50 coins per block, but the linear increase of coin supply would still make any newly generated coins insignificant comparing to all the existing coins, just the curve is not that steep
But the impression is totally different
1. Daily coin generation is 7200 coins
2. Total coin generation will be 21M
Comparing the two statements, the second one obviously give the impression of a limited supply, while the first one still feels like endless supply. This impression affect people's interest and trust, in the first case, bitcoin might never reach the status it has today
Do you have any reference to that discussion? I would certainly like to read it. |
|
|
|
Just to add .. IF btc was produced faster as you suggest, or even faster, and all 21 million were to be mined by this August 2013. Then don't you think that ALL the btc would most definitely be in the hands of the minority. THAT would be a bad thing, then btc would die, or at least grow extremely slowly, but most likely die. Spreading it out nice and steady and encouraging current holders to spread it out is a very very good thing. Don't think short term 'I wanna make lotsa money!!", think long term "I want to save the world." OK, maybe saving the world is too much for a lot of people, but having some Satoshi is a good step towards that  Satoshi Nakomoto is a genius, and thought long term. Thanks for a reply with a rationale, rather than the religious kind. You misunderstood me at a key point: Yes I want a faster coin production - but I want it to remain constant. Not to stop. I know the volume would be ever increasing, but I think the increased demand would keep infaltion well down, and one would still have defaltion. |
|
|
|
You could also fix the early adopter/bitdust problems.
1) Any unspent coins generated/transferred but not spent since the first 18 mos of the network are deleted.
2) Unspent balances less than .01 are gone
3) Coins older than 12-18 months are divided by 2. Coins 18-24 months old divided by 4. Coins 24-36 months old divided by 8, and the rest are older than 18 months and are deleted.
4) to prevent windfalls to mt gox, who hold a bunch of accounts and won't give that money to their customers in the new chain, cap btc address balances at 100 BTC (currently $10k).
This might reduce that 11 mil number to like 7 or 8 mil. you then increase the total coins to ever be released to 100 mil, so current users wind up with 7-8% of the total future supply.
You could form a genesis block that has a special coinbase. All the current unspent addresses would be the coinbase with balances next to them.
Then you could come up with an adoption schedule over the next 10 year:
No I would never ever touch the earlier coins- that would certanily be a disaster. And the early adopters arent a problem. The problem is that there are not supply for tha large masses to enter - who now are completely left to the grace of the early adopters. |
|
|
|
What's the deal with all these Jr members who have registered a few weeks ago coming here to tell us why Bitcoin doesn't work or what Bitcoin needs to do?  I have been in bitcoin since mid 2012. I have made some good money on it, and still have some coins. I have been investing in the stock market for more than 20 years before that. I understand the basic principles of the technology, and I definitely understand market mechanisms and its dynamics. I share the facination for bitcoins and Satoshi's breakthrogh with most of you guys. But I believe the issues I try raise here are very important for bitcoin's future, and the kind of responses I get does not change that, it only disappoints me. |
|
|
|
As most people in this forum I have great hopes for cryptocurrencies. However I just cannot see how bitcoin can achieve mainstream adaptation, because: Broad adaptation would require >50 million users and market cap>20 billion usd It must happen over a period of 2-3 years But practically all bitcoins for that period are already produced and posessed Some magic kind of distribution must take place - that wont happen! Bitcoins will remain a sandbox for speculators and kids unless something is done. One solution is proposed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181488.0 |
|
|
|
I can tell you how this is going to end: a small portion of the hashpower of the Bitcoin network will join your chain, then 51% you, then you are game over.
I would have nothing to gain from that, besides it would not neccesarily be possible. My intention starting the new chain is to allow bitcoin a future. I am just telling you this is what is gonna happen, not making a judgement. Bitcoin's design precludes the chance of survival of any copycat, you need to come up with some new mining algorithm which is incompatible with Bitcoin(like LTC's scrypt) to survive, FYI several altcoins had been taken down by 51% attacks because they can be merge-mined with bitcoins. I know there is some issues with that, but I think it can be solved somehow. My goal now is to gain understanding for the need of faster money supply in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I can tell you how this is going to end: a small portion of the hashpower of the Bitcoin network will join your chain, then 51% you, then you are game over.
I would have nothing to gain from that, besides it would not neccesarily be possible. My intention starting the new chain is to allow bitcoin a future. |
|
|
|
what problem does that solve?
I think a Keynesian would say... Lack of credit expansion? By creating a decentralized analogue to a central bank? I guess I could see it working (though less efficiently than Bitcoin) due to the fact that people will use a fiat currency. Theoretically, as long as people would accept it in exchange for goods and services, then it would work by definition. The target inflation rate would be predictably steady. I suppose if people wanted decentralized fiat, that'd be the way to do it. Not that I think OP is serious, since the whole point of Bitcoin is to be deflationary. This proposed currency would be pretty close to deflationary as well. A fixed sum of new coins means that inflation will decrease every year percentage wise, until it is practically negligible. Exactly. And before it becomes negligible it will by far be outmatched by increased demand and market cap. |
|
|
|
what problem does that solve?
Not be a early adopter ! Genius ! If bitcoin is to become a true alternative currency, the amount of users will grow exponentially over next few years. It will not be possible to realize this when 'all' coins already are held by early adapters. Early adapters will anyway become rich if the new chain is successful. |
|
|
|
I will create a forked chain of bitcoin to accomdate for broad adaptation. The only major change from the old chain is: Reward of 200 BTC per block for each new block - (never changed)- The chain will produce 10.5 million coins/year (which is far from enough to cause inflation)
- The clients (incl source) running the new fork will be made available well ahead of the fork
- All bitcoins created before the fork will by nature be contained in the new chain
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin is useless"
Then go somewhere else... ? Why? Look up at the name of the website you are using: bitcointalk.org If you have no use for bitcoins, then maybe you should ask yourself why you are here on a bitcoin site? Trolling perhaps? Could you go into a bit more detail what you were spending hours on that gave you such a low return? Then you should ask yourself what you did to get any dollars you have? Maybe you could do the same thing in exchange for some bitcoins? So you mean that posts bringing sceptcal views on bitcoin are not eligible here? I disagree. Although I am very interested in bitcoin, I think this forum has enough hallelujah about bitcoin. I welcome and join the minority of heretics. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
