 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
What is your opinion on the effect that a strong Swiss Franc has had on the economy of Switzerland? Don't you think that the same thing could happen to Bitcoin's economy?
|
|
|
|
The rise of the System D economy and trading between anonymous parties will promote a shift towards a reputation-based economy to facilitate commerce, so I think it's important to create a reliable web of trust system to support it. We already have the bitcoin-otc web of trust, which works perfectly fine now but has the problem of being centralized, and so it can be manipulated. Just like with currencies and dns, a decentralized web of trust would be preferable. So basically the idea is to just embed a WoT system into a blockchain (with bitcoin-otc rules or similar) using a special transaction that says "address X gives a rating of +1 to address Y". Also it should be possible to transfer ones rating from one address to another to be able to launder it in case that the identity of the owner is compromised. |
|
|
|
|
I'm seeing very low hash rates reported when using scrypt so I would assume that if I tried to mine with Javascript the algorithm itself would be the bottleneck rather than the JS miner, right?
It would be pretty exciting if true as it becomes very viable for site owners to profit from embedded JS miners instead of fees/ads/subscriptions.
|
|
|
|
|
There's some discussion about whether Solidcoin is actually a cryptocurrency and that it should be banned from the altcoin subforum if it's not, so I was wondering if the Bitcointalk staff have any criteria for determining if a currency is indeed a cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
By now it's clear that the majority of people reject the idea that wealth is proportional to the trustworthiness of a node, so how about this: instead of directly giving supernode status to wealthiest people we vote for supernodes (which may not necessarily be wealthy) with our money, in the ratio of 1 coin = 1 vote. This way poorer people can band together and surpass the voting power of the rich ones to elect a supernode of their choosing. It also allows the rich to relinquish their supernode power and give it to a more trusted member of the network. Voting would be done with a special transaction which basically says that any money held by the sending address is a vote for node X. Would this work better? For reference, here is the original system: http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php |
|
|
|
You can now mine Bitcoin and Namecoin simultaneously without needing to split your hashing power between the two. Pools with MM enabled: - MasterPool- Simplecoin- Nmcbit |
|
|
|
Because in cryptocurrencies we are able to tell exactly how much money has been issued and how much has been transacted in a given period, we are also able to determine the velocity of money. The velocity of money is the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent in a specific period of time.  In this chart we can see that the velocity of money (green line) increases in inflationary booms and decreases in deflationary recessions (gray bars), which is logical; when there is inflation people want to spend their money and when there's deflation they want to save it. We can take advantage of this to figure out how much money we should be issuing. If one year the velocity is 100 and the next year it's 102 we can assume that the currency has devalued so we cut the reward to get rid of the excess liquidity. If the next year it goes down to 98 we assume that the currency has appreciated because the demand for it exceeded the supply, so we pump up the block reward to bring the velocity back to 0%. Of course, people could just send themselves money every block to fake the velocity and create hyperinflation. The solution for that is to use ( # of coins sent)*(# of confirmations on sent coins at the time that they are sent) in the equation instead of plain sent amount. This makes it a waste of time to send yourself money every block instead of waiting to make a legitimate transaction. Also, since the block reward depends on transaction volume and there can't be a transaction volume if there are no coins to spend, we would need an initial period of guaranteed reward to kickstart the economy before the transaction-based reward takes over. Let's say 2 years worth of blocks with 50 coins every block. Yay or nay? |
|
|
|
|
EDIT: New reward algorithm is nSubsidy = log2(difficulty)
This method of money creation to achieve a stable monetary policy has been suggested before but has been shot down quickly on the assumption that it would create hyperinflation. I agree that, because of technological progress, increasing difficulty by X amount will be cheaper in the future than it is now, but I propose that the relative effort of increasing difficulty by X% should have little variance over time. In other words, going from 1,000,000 difficulty to 2,000,000 at some point in the future will be as cheap as going from 1,000 to 2,000 right now. Thus the block reward could be a function of the difficulty growth rate to maintain stability.
|
|
|
|
http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=308&start=10#p2056It's good thing I don't go back on my word or I would make you a "true believer" the same way I made Coinhunter after he made his public challenge. You need some new material BitcoinEXpress, your trolling's getting ordinary. @doubleC
No problem DoubleC
You want it like that. No problem.
Your exchanges and pools are my primary target effective immediately. I will also reorganize the Namecoin attack and will begin as soon as I can get it assembled. We'll see who's trolling.
BCX If anyone had any doubt, now you know the first attack threat was not to force Namecoin devs into action, it was just an 11 year old craving attention.
|
|
|
|
One way to moderate this is would be by introducing a simple voting mechanism where bitcoin account holders would periodically submit their desired inflation or deflation rate through a cryptographically secure vote stored in the block chain (which could later be purged to save space).
This would in effect create a decentralized central bank, where currency holders decide somewhat democratically on their desired level of expansion. The currency wouldn't be deflationary or inflationary in principle, since prevailing market conditions and the community's own aggregate economic interests would determine supply.
If miners held a majority of currency in reserve, they would still dominate any voting system, but they would need to take the minority view into account, since minority users could switch to alternative currencies and the market would shrink.
Got that from here: http://culubas.blogspot.com/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.htmlI think most would agree that it is more desirable to have price stability than either deflation or inflation so I'm mainly interested in discussing the viability of implementing something like this. I was thinking that instead of having a special voting transaction, which only a few would bother to use, votes could be embedded into every normal transaction where each unit of currency sent is 1 vote. An average of all votes taken during the last 30 days or so would then determine what nSubsidy should be. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Why don't they expand the money supply by paying for stuff instead of using this shitty credit scheme? They could fund a significant portion of the budget this way. In the US M2 is at like $ 10 trillion and last time I checked it was expanding by almost 10% a year. This would mean a trillion in revenue, enough to completely slash the individual income tax. I'm sure some less bloated governments would be able to completely fund themselves like that without necessarily causing hyperinflation.
Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41291.0He closed this thread just because he believes deflationary spirals are a fallacy, when it is a controversial subject very much open for discussion. Is this abuse of power tolerated by the administration?
|
|
|
|
At first I thought it would be worse but I'm not sure anymore. Maybe CoinHunter is right but I'd like to hear the opinion of some other technical people. This is the only discussion I've found so far in the subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31587.0 |
|
|
|
|
Made a new thread because there's too much noise in the announcement thread.
I've heard that increasing the block generation and retarget rates would produce blockchain forks too often because of latency problems. Don't you think this will be an issue with blocks every 3 minutes and retargets every 240 blocks or is the problem being exaggerated?
Also, assuming that the max capacity of blocks remains 1 mb, is there any worry that the blockchain could grow too big too fast from spam attacks?
|
|
|
|
|
Is the source code for i0coin available anywhere? I heard it implemented the "retarget every 2016 blocks or every 2 weeks, whichever comes first" feature and want to check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that the creation of alternative blockchains is taking off I think it merits to have a dedicated subforum to avoid the flood of threads in Bitcoin Discussion and Off-topic. Aside from talking about specific chains, this forum could serve to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different changes to satoshi's original design, and to help non programmers who want to fork implement these changes.
|
|
|
|
|
The usual complaint about dark pools is that it makes the market look too thin and therefore not worth it despite the advantages of low volatility and low spreads. So what if the market depth was scrapped entirely to avoid that? No bids and asks, the only information you would have is the trade history and volume. Would such an exchange be viable or would it have some huge disadvantages?
|
|
|
|
|
