 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
I think if you blacklist one address, they can create new addresses, as everyone one of us can ! So we could blacklist those wallets and addreses, but they could just change the wallet and create new addresses, so they would still continue in the bitcoin market !
Good luck with the transaction fees! |
|
|
|
Haven't those already been sold at auction?
I don't know. But a blacklist would of prevented it or will prevent it if they are still hoarding them. |
|
|
|
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi_wallet/The FBI seized 144,000 bitcoins, which are worth $300 million today. Right now bitcoin taxation is impossible,with or without address blacklists.
It's not impossible. They can raid your home, seize your computer, transfer your bitcoins from your wallet to theirs and then go on a nice vacation with your money.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that it is in the interest of all bitcoin users to keep bitcoin free from government influence.
I propose to add a blacklist of all addresses that are associated with government, so that no one can send bitcoin to or retrieve them from the blacklisted addresses. The bitcoin miners and clients should refuse to validate transactions containing a blacklisted address.
That will make bitcoin taxation harder if not impossible, and will make it cost prohibitive to seize and thus regulate bitcoin.
Every bitcoin client should be free to make a custom blacklist or download one from the internet.
|
|
|
|
The miners also benefit from the current cap, because the reward is more valueble than what it would have been if there were a flexible cap. What would you chose? 100 bitcoins @ $10/BTC OR say 12 bitcoins at $800/BTC < Just a simple example >
Miners would sell all the bitcoins before increasing the production, so your point is invalid. We won't tell you until it's too late  |
|
|
|
i don't know why you only understood the irrelevant half of my comment! i am talking about "supply" part of it. if we assume your suggestion is implemented, then there are going to be thousands of miners mining bitcoin and earning a very large amount of bitcoin everyday, an amount which is then going to be dumped on the market killing the price. go take a look at that link and study the history of some of those coins, you can even check out some of the top coins too. they all suffer from the same mistake. lots of mining reward, miners dumping and price crashing. essentially making it worthless. p.s. you think gold would have been valuable if you could find it growing on trees? Did you miss out the part where I said that I'd like a 2% inflation and that bitcoin right now has 4%? You tried a straw man argument and you failed! |
|
|
|
~the cap of 21 million would be lifted.
go here ( https://coinmarketcap.com/#USD) then in that table click on the "Available Supply" link in the header to sort the coins with that factor in a descending order and take a look at coins with a massive available supply and take a look at each of their prices. and if you are not familiar with the concept of "supply and demand" google it. I'd argue that the demand for bitcoin is low because of the early adopters hoarding most of bitcoin and waiting for the greater fool to fall in the trap. If the distribution was more fair, the demand would grow faster than the increased supply. Also, the miners, who are the backbone of bitcoin, are being exploited by constantly decreasing wages and more difficult work every day! We must unionize! |
|
|
|
That's a horrible analogy. We should rape and pillage so we all get an even amount of bitcoins instead of some early adopters getting any benefit. It seems like the complete opposite of what bitcoin is about, so good luck with this altcoin. May I suggest a name? Infinite supply Indian-hating shitcoin, or isis for short. I think it'll do great/s.
Altcoins are just the same game, and as long as there are late comers, there will be new altcoins every day. No, we must change bitcoin, by force, to implement a more fair distribution scheme, and all altcoins will disappear. We miners must make an union that will safeguard our interests and livelihood and stop being exploited by the dirty capitalists. |
|
|
|
Also late-comers just have to deal with it; it's like everything. You find it early, take a risk, get rewarded sometimes and lose out others.
Find something new and get involved with it, then get rewarded. It's not supposed to be fair for everyone. First person to a new cache of resources gets rewarded appropriately.
In a real world scenario, a small number of people that gets to the cache of resources will be raided by a much larger group and have their resources taken away from them. Which is what I'm proposing here. The majority of miners would agree to increase miner reward and thus "raid" your cache of resources. That's what happened with the continent of america. Just because a small group of people claimed all the land (the "indians"), means nothing when the larger and more powerful group (europeans) comes and takes it away by force. Which is what should happen with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Right now, no matter how many mine, the block reward is the same.
Your formula would be difficult to implement and it's not future proof. After the last halving the miners will earn only from tx fees. How will you formula apply then? It won't. Sorry, IMHO it's not a good idea.
No more halving. The reward of bitcoins would be dynamic and thus the cap of 21 million would be lifted. Many people argue that what gives Bitcoin its value is scarcity. If you make bitcoins cap we're removed it would lose that benefit. You're system would also need a cap at some point to eliminate the infinite supply concept. Even governments use manipulation of the supply of money to control inflation and deflation. Your system would be continuously inflationary. If the adoption of bitcoin is not rapid enough, there won't be enough transaction fees to pay for the miner's electricity. But if it's too rapid, there won't be enough bitcoins for everyone (with the current system). With my system, miners continue to earn bitcoins in perpetuity and more mining is encouraged and a growth that is too rapid is not a problem since the introduction of new bitcoins will be proportional to the growth. Inflation is bad, but generally if it's less than 2% it's not a problem. The formula could be tweaked to achieve less than 2% inflation. Which even in an infinite time frame would be OK. Bitcoin at it's inception had a 100% inflation ratio! The current inflation rate of bitcoin is about 4%/year, which is a bit high. |
|
|
|
Right now, no matter how many mine, the block reward is the same.
Your formula would be difficult to implement and it's not future proof. After the last halving the miners will earn only from tx fees. How will you formula apply then? It won't. Sorry, IMHO it's not a good idea.
No more halving. The reward of bitcoins would be dynamic and thus the cap of 21 million would be lifted. |
|
|
|
|
What would happen if the miner reward was proportional to the difficulty?
As more and more people mine, the reward would be bigger and bigger, allowing for a more fair distribution of coins for late comers, IMO.
I think a good formula for miner reward would be reward=0.01√difficulty (square root to discourage inflation), which would give 5569 bitcoins right now, or 24 million bitcoins per year at the current difficulty.
Of course the early adopters would not like such a system, but they are the minority IMO. As long as the majority benefits from such a system, I think we can do it.
|
|
|
|
|
