 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Why do you seem to believe that increasing the supply of a currency leads to it being "stable"? Price is a measure of instantaneous supply vs instantaneous demand. Demand for a currency will always grow over time. There will be more people creating new types of valuable goods and services in the future. products and people that don't even exist today. More available goods/services chasing the same amount of available coins means currency prices will change (not be stable). To preserve stable prices the amount of currency available to be traded must scale with the amount of goods/services seeking to be traded. Occasionally then amount of goods and services available for trade will fall compared with the amount of currency available for trade. That will need to be compensated for as well. Increasing supply beyond a marginal baseline rate distorts the market and creates a destructive feedback loop that will harshly return the market to its equilibrium. In other words, you are creating a bubble that will eventually burst creating negative consequences for everyone. The two books that I have listed in my quote in my previous post describe this very well. Bitcoin's current volatility is because people do not trust the safety of Bitcoin. However, the trend is for the cryptocurrencies' usage to increase exponentially over the next 10 years, as more and more people realize their inherent advantage and put a greater amount of assets that they control either directly or indirectly into them. This is further abetted by the catastrophic state of the world economy, where the probability of its implosion and of the magnitude of the implosion are getting greater and greater. Whether this usage will relate to Bitcoin or to an alternative that will pop up that significantly improves upon Bitcoin's security, performance, and usability, remains to be seen. As people's understanding in the safety of the best cryptocurrencies improves, their volatility decreases. Once the most ideal cryptocurrency becomes the dominating world currency, volatility will be a thing of the past, as people's trust in its safety will be complete and there will be no real possibility of its supply increasing beyond a marginal baseline rate therefore causing bubbles (called malinvestments). Most of the currency will be stored in full reserve banking for safety (the company storing the currency guarantees that it will not lend it out), while a much smaller portion will be invested in fractional reserve banking (the much smaller portion of the currency is invested in another company that lends your investment without guaranteeing any reserve, just like how it is done with Ripple, where the amount a company is trusted is based on its lending performance). This means that the risk of bubbles, or that is of malinvestments, originating because of fractional reserve banking is minimized. @several,
Anyone fixated on who owns how many XRP doesn't understand the Ripple System. Inside Ripple XRP isn't intended to be used as money. That is purely a projection of BitCoiners onto Ripple. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the [StableCoin] concept. Even when implemented inside the Ripple System a [StableCoin]'s value will have no dependency on XRP at all.
The founders, employees, and investors of OpenCoin have bet everything on XRP appreciating exponentially, and this is precisely because XRP has a relatively fixed supply and exponentially increasing demand. Its weakness is its centralization, that can be offset from a competitor arising with an algorithmic distribution method. |
|
|
|
But maybe one can come up to chaotic hash,
which will be provably impossible to
implement in ASIC/FPGA !?
So I'm not sure I understand the appeal of ASIC resistance. The most you can achieve is to make the ASIC design very expensive. The greater the ASIC resistance the more expensive the production of the ASIC will be. What can be at least tried is to make it as expensive as possible to produce the ASICs, while taking care that the code can still maintain network performance. Maintaining network performance and making it as hard as possible for attackers to try and take control of the network, even as the market capitalization reaches the greatest heights, is the objective. |
|
|
|
I've been researching Ripple. It's ledgers (blocks), transactional model, INSTANT commits, consensus building, scalability, etc...
If you read their wiki it should be obvious to the casual observer that Ripple is *Coin 2.0. There is just no question. I has every desirable bitcoin system/code improvement we've ever discussed in a StableCoin/EnCoin/GEM/Decrits thread. In the future every new coin will be a fork of the Ripple codebase. It's just better in every way.
On top of that, OpenCoin has built a business called Ripple. In that business they use XRP to control spamming the blocks/ledgers. See Ripple "Reserves". They also use it for internal accounting. They also it for things that other threads have called "Colored" bitcoins. In ripple you can have IOUs, keep track of your Dollars separately from your Euros. Send Dollars from one address to Rupees at another address.
The transaction creating system (client) finds the best rate in the ledger. Exchanges denominations in the ledger. Delivers the money in the ledger. Everything is completely 100 percent distributed, secured, anonymous and trustworthy.
The one thing that's not really their primary use case, however, is storing stable value in XRP. Those values are intended to float around. XRP are not StableCoins in the sense that we've been using that term. But it doesn't matter because the system trades from dollars to XRP to rupees in a single transaction. It doesn't need to "hold" XRP over any period in which the value can change.
Their is no reason that we/anyone couldn't build a StableCoin monetary policy using a fork of the Ripple codebase. (When available) But it's not completely clear to me if there is a long term reason for doing so. If you think the dollar sucks and is going to fail. Just send your money to Europe and store it there. Or China, or anywhere you trust a bank.
Don't trust a bank? Well I guess that's StableCoin's primary audience now.
Any thoughts?
Why do you seem to believe that increasing the supply of a currency leads to it being "stable"? Read this post that I made on the Netcoin thread: I said that a no cap coin could be successful. I didn't call for a massively inflationary coin. You can look at inflation in two ways. There's the overall number of currency units, and there's the number of currency units per person using the currency. As long as the number of grows slower than the number of currency users, you have an increase in the overall money supply but a decrease per capita.
Here's the thing lots of people don't grasp. Excessive DEFLATION can be just as bad as excessive inflation. An economy needs the money to move around, be passed from person to person. The more this happens, the more an economy tends to grow. If your money goes up in value just from you holding it, you're less likely to spend it on something. The Great Depression in the U.S. during the '30s was a result of deflation. There wasn't enough money to go around, and so lots of people didn't have any.
And that's the crux of it. Yeah, sure, you can make a currency divisible up to x units, however many you want that too be. And in the pure mathematical theory of it, yeah, sure, that could totally work, even on a worldwide scale. The problem you run into with that is that people are trained to view fractions of the base currency unit as being not worth much at all. Because, almost universally, they aren't. I can buy a gumball with a quarter. I'm not aware of anything I can buy with a dime, nickel, or penny.
Over the last week or however long that I've been reading and posting in this thread, I've been getting a very distinct vibe along the lines of "we're gonna get in first, and we'll be rich. And then all the other people can go screw themselves. And while they're doing that, they'll also use this currency, because it's so awesome. While they're off screwing themselves"
That sounds amazingly like what I would expect major banks to say, except about quantitative easing aka government/tax funded bailouts instead of about getting there first.
Also, and this is what really bothers me, if there's a small number of coins overall, it's a lot easier for an enthusiastic early adopter to grab a huge amount of them, and then walk in front of a bus while he congratulates himself on how awesome he is. At this stage in the game, it's fairly unlikely that anyone who knows what crypto currency is will find his wallet, so, hey, there goes 30 percent of the money supply
The Great Depression was not caused by "not enough money" moving around. The Great Depression was seeded with the Federal Reserve's inflation policy and ignited by the policies of the New Deal. If you want to learn what really happened, read David Stockman's "The Great Deformation" and http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Great_Depression. Deflation encourages saving and investment, whereas inflation encourages consumption. If a currency with a relatively fixed supply (given that hybrid PoS / PoW currencies need to have minimal inflation in order to work) based on the free market appreciates by 400% annually from a beginning market capitalization of a few million current US dollars to a market capitalization of a fraction of the total market capitalization of all fiat currencies and of gold, or that is to something like 20 trillion current US dollars, then the holder of such a currency is called a saver, and such a saver will also want to invest part of his or her profit while the currency is appreciating, and a significant percentage of his or her total profit once the currency has reached its true market capitalization. Therefore, the saver is also called an "investor". This is something that people who believe in Keynesianism and Monetarism don't understand, that savers are investors. It is really important for the developers of Netcoin and its initial users to understand the economics behind currencies well, otherwise they are going to make severe mistakes in Netcoin's development. To learn economics, read http://library.mises.org/books/Gene%20Callahan/Economics%20for%20Real%20People.pdf, David Stockman's "The Great Deformation", and https://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae14_3_3.pdf. The only flaws in Austrian economics are Mises' Regression Theorem and the reliance on anarcho-capitalism. Both types of coins are going to make early adopters rich, but I think part of the success of Bitcoin is you can look at it now and you can know if it reaches 0.5-1% of the global economy it's going to be worth $70,000-100,000 each coin. This is actually desirable, what I'm saying is it's a good thing for Netcoin if those people who hold it are encouraged to hold it for years in hopes that each Netcoin could be worth millions. This turns people into long term stake holders and proof of stake encourages this even further. If Netcoin produced 11 million instead of 21 million then we would know that at some point if it's technology really is better than Bitcoin it's going to go head to head with Bitcoin. It's not going to aim for 2nd place like Litecoin, but instead aim for 1st place.
What I'm saying is you're not going to have any long term holders of a coin like Feathercoin, Chinacoin, or any of those coins with billions of coins being created or trillions of coins being created because there is no incentive to save these coins. And as far as spending goes, you don't have to give people an incentive to spend money. When the infrastructure exists to make it easy for people to get exactly what they want the moment they want it with these coins then people will start spending them.
We don't need to have a billion coins and be tricked into feeling rich when we can have millions of coins and actually live rich. The dollar already has trillions, and there will be no reason why we should make it cheap for billionaires and millionaires to buy into these reserved slots. 11 million coins will make it twice as expensive to buy into these reserved slots as before which would mean you'd still have the potential that some billionaire could buy a bunch of coins while they are cheap, but I don't see why we should make that easy. I see it where you have a limited supply you have limited slots, just like not everyone can have a billion dollars, and no one has a trillion dollars, not everyone should have a Bitcoin or a Netcoin. If we let everyone have one then the value of each wont be as high because a millionaire isn't going to pay a million dollars a coin when we'll give him a coin for 10 cent.
These opinions are mine only, anyone is free to disagree and now is the time to debate. I've made my position known, I do not support the Chinacoin/Feathercoin/Litecoin (cheapcoin) model. I support the idea of diversity where you have some cheap coins for certain purposes such as pump and dump but then you have some coins where we might want to save them for 10 years because they are so rare, and then some coins which are in the middle. Bitcoin is the center of the bellcurve and is the normal coin and normal is 21 million. Rare would be less than 21 million, and inflationary would be more than 21 million and despite the sentiments of others on this forum when I see a coin based on Litecoin with greater than 21 million total, the higher the total number of coins and the faster the generation of these coins the less likely I am to buy them and the more likely I am to see it as a pure speculation sport coin for pump and dumps or a coin so miners who premined or who got in early can make a quick profit.
Your argument is based on the position that there is psychological benefit to a currency's supply being limited so that one whole number unit is worth hundreds if not millions of US dollars. This is a flawed argument as there is marginal, if any, psychological benefit. The average user is not going to care if one whole number unit of his currency is worth 1 current US dollar or 100,000 current US dollars, as he or she is going to simply hold 100,000 times the amount of the former if the latter's scenario is the case. A currency's worth is derived from its supply being relatively stable, and durable, portable, and divisible. The divisible part is where current cryptocurrencies are flawed. If Bitcoin were to reach a 20 trillion current US dollar market capitalization, its smallest unit would still be worth a significant amount of current US dollars, not making it satisfy the divisibility property. I believe that the supply for the perfect cryptocurrency needs to be 10 trillion units, divisible to 8 decimal places. This would allow its smallest unit to be usable to round off the smallest transactions even if market capitalization for the currency was greater than 70 trillion current US dollars. Remember that a significant portion of the world still needs to industrialize, and that further productivity gains are still possible, from making free markets actually work to technology improvements. This increases the total market capitalization of all possible currencies from 70 trillion current US dollars. |
|
|
|
The problem with Ripple is that OpenCoin could be raided by the feds and then XRP are worth NOTHING.
Also, it isnt mined - and it isnt even close to being scarce. Its made by a FOR_PROFIT_PRIVATE_COMPANY. They have one goal. MAKE MONEY.
BTC and LTC dont have these problems...
You forgot it was developed by a for profit company, and they have held onto 25% of all XRP for themselves. The problem is even worse, as the founders, employees, and investors are going to hold at least 50% of all XRPs. Quite frankly I view such a business model as being disgusting. If they wanted so desperately to make money they should have created a distribution method based on misterbigg's idea, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147700.0, or something better, and invested and mined it early on while not trying to monopolize it, instead of premining it and trying to convince the rest of the people that this is a great idea. I sincerely hope that once it is open sourced, a competitor with a better distribution method is going to be developed. Also, the argument that Bitcoin is just as centralized doesn't hold. Ripple is significantly more centrally held than Bitcoin when comparing the founders, employees, and investors of OpenCoin with the early adopters of Bitcoin. You can use your analysis to make an investment decision - it's a free market. You have all the facts, as does everyone else. There is no doubt that Ripple is going to be succesful despite its drawback, but I still believe that a competitor will come, and that both currencies are going to compete against each other. Ripple in many ways does seem as the perfect cryptocurrency, except for its distribution method and its supply, which should be multiplied by 100, so as to be usable up to the smallest transactions with a market capitalization of greater than 70 trillion current US dollars, given that the world is undergoing the phase of searching for the most ideal currency, a significant portion of the world still needs to industrialize, productivity can further increase by allowing unlike now for the free market to work, and productivity can increase even further through technology improvements. |
|
|
|
The problem with Ripple is that OpenCoin could be raided by the feds and then XRP are worth NOTHING.
Also, it isnt mined - and it isnt even close to being scarce. Its made by a FOR_PROFIT_PRIVATE_COMPANY. They have one goal. MAKE MONEY.
BTC and LTC dont have these problems...
You forgot it was developed by a for profit company, and they have held onto 25% of all XRP for themselves. The problem is even worse, as the founders, employees, and investors are going to hold at least 50% of all XRPs. Quite frankly I view such a business model as being disgusting. If they wanted so desperately to make money they should have created a distribution method based on misterbigg's idea, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147700.0, or something better, and invested and mined it early on while not trying to monopolize it, instead of premining it and trying to convince the rest of the people that this is a great idea. I sincerely hope that once it is open sourced, a competitor with a better distribution method is going to be developed. Also, the argument that Bitcoin is just as centralized doesn't hold. Ripple is significantly more centrally held than Bitcoin when comparing the founders, employees, and investors of OpenCoin with the early adopters of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I said that a no cap coin could be successful. I didn't call for a massively inflationary coin. You can look at inflation in two ways. There's the overall number of currency units, and there's the number of currency units per person using the currency. As long as the number of grows slower than the number of currency users, you have an increase in the overall money supply but a decrease per capita.
Here's the thing lots of people don't grasp. Excessive DEFLATION can be just as bad as excessive inflation. An economy needs the money to move around, be passed from person to person. The more this happens, the more an economy tends to grow. If your money goes up in value just from you holding it, you're less likely to spend it on something. The Great Depression in the U.S. during the '30s was a result of deflation. There wasn't enough money to go around, and so lots of people didn't have any.
And that's the crux of it. Yeah, sure, you can make a currency divisible up to x units, however many you want that too be. And in the pure mathematical theory of it, yeah, sure, that could totally work, even on a worldwide scale. The problem you run into with that is that people are trained to view fractions of the base currency unit as being not worth much at all. Because, almost universally, they aren't. I can buy a gumball with a quarter. I'm not aware of anything I can buy with a dime, nickel, or penny.
Over the last week or however long that I've been reading and posting in this thread, I've been getting a very distinct vibe along the lines of "we're gonna get in first, and we'll be rich. And then all the other people can go screw themselves. And while they're doing that, they'll also use this currency, because it's so awesome. While they're off screwing themselves"
That sounds amazingly like what I would expect major banks to say, except about quantitative easing aka government/tax funded bailouts instead of about getting there first.
Also, and this is what really bothers me, if there's a small number of coins overall, it's a lot easier for an enthusiastic early adopter to grab a huge amount of them, and then walk in front of a bus while he congratulates himself on how awesome he is. At this stage in the game, it's fairly unlikely that anyone who knows what crypto currency is will find his wallet, so, hey, there goes 30 percent of the money supply
The Great Depression was not caused by "not enough money" moving around. The Great Depression was seeded with the Federal Reserve's inflation policy and ignited by the policies of the New Deal. If you want to learn what really happened, read David Stockman's "The Great Deformation" and http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Great_Depression. Deflation encourages saving and investment, whereas inflation encourages consumption. If a currency with a relatively fixed supply (given that hybrid PoS / PoW currencies need to have minimal inflation in order to work) based on the free market appreciates by 400% annually from a beginning market capitalization of a few million current US dollars to a market capitalization of a fraction of the total market capitalization of all fiat currencies and of gold, or that is to something like 20 trillion current US dollars, then the holder of such a currency is called a saver, and such a saver will also want to invest part of his or her profit while the currency is appreciating, and a significant percentage of his or her total profit once the currency has reached its true market capitalization. Therefore, the saver is also called an "investor". This is something that people who believe in Keynesianism and Monetarism don't understand, that savers are investors. It is really important for the developers of Netcoin and its initial users to understand the economics behind currencies well, otherwise they are going to make severe mistakes in Netcoin's development. To learn economics, read http://library.mises.org/books/Gene%20Callahan/Economics%20for%20Real%20People.pdf, David Stockman's "The Great Deformation", and https://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae14_3_3.pdf. The only flaws in Austrian economics are Mises' Regression Theorem and the reliance on anarcho-capitalism. Both types of coins are going to make early adopters rich, but I think part of the success of Bitcoin is you can look at it now and you can know if it reaches 0.5-1% of the global economy it's going to be worth $70,000-100,000 each coin. This is actually desirable, what I'm saying is it's a good thing for Netcoin if those people who hold it are encouraged to hold it for years in hopes that each Netcoin could be worth millions. This turns people into long term stake holders and proof of stake encourages this even further. If Netcoin produced 11 million instead of 21 million then we would know that at some point if it's technology really is better than Bitcoin it's going to go head to head with Bitcoin. It's not going to aim for 2nd place like Litecoin, but instead aim for 1st place.
What I'm saying is you're not going to have any long term holders of a coin like Feathercoin, Chinacoin, or any of those coins with billions of coins being created or trillions of coins being created because there is no incentive to save these coins. And as far as spending goes, you don't have to give people an incentive to spend money. When the infrastructure exists to make it easy for people to get exactly what they want the moment they want it with these coins then people will start spending them.
We don't need to have a billion coins and be tricked into feeling rich when we can have millions of coins and actually live rich. The dollar already has trillions, and there will be no reason why we should make it cheap for billionaires and millionaires to buy into these reserved slots. 11 million coins will make it twice as expensive to buy into these reserved slots as before which would mean you'd still have the potential that some billionaire could buy a bunch of coins while they are cheap, but I don't see why we should make that easy. I see it where you have a limited supply you have limited slots, just like not everyone can have a billion dollars, and no one has a trillion dollars, not everyone should have a Bitcoin or a Netcoin. If we let everyone have one then the value of each wont be as high because a millionaire isn't going to pay a million dollars a coin when we'll give him a coin for 10 cent.
These opinions are mine only, anyone is free to disagree and now is the time to debate. I've made my position known, I do not support the Chinacoin/Feathercoin/Litecoin (cheapcoin) model. I support the idea of diversity where you have some cheap coins for certain purposes such as pump and dump but then you have some coins where we might want to save them for 10 years because they are so rare, and then some coins which are in the middle. Bitcoin is the center of the bellcurve and is the normal coin and normal is 21 million. Rare would be less than 21 million, and inflationary would be more than 21 million and despite the sentiments of others on this forum when I see a coin based on Litecoin with greater than 21 million total, the higher the total number of coins and the faster the generation of these coins the less likely I am to buy them and the more likely I am to see it as a pure speculation sport coin for pump and dumps or a coin so miners who premined or who got in early can make a quick profit.
Your argument is based on the position that there is psychological benefit to a currency's supply being limited so that one whole number unit is worth hundreds if not millions of US dollars. This is a flawed argument as there is marginal, if any, psychological benefit. The average user is not going to care if one whole number unit of his currency is worth 1 current US dollar or 100,000 current US dollars, as he or she is going to simply hold 100,000 times the amount of the former if the latter's scenario is the case. A currency's worth is derived from its supply being relatively stable, and durable, portable, and divisible. The divisible part is where current cryptocurrencies are flawed. If Bitcoin were to reach a 20 trillion current US dollar market capitalization, its smallest unit would still be worth a significant amount of current US dollars, not making it satisfy the divisibility property. I believe that the supply for the perfect cryptocurrency needs to be 10 trillion units, divisible to 8 decimal places. This would allow its smallest unit to be usable to round off the smallest transactions even if market capitalization for the currency was greater than 70 trillion current US dollars. Remember that a significant portion of the world still needs to industrialize, and that further productivity gains are still possible, from making free markets actually work to technology improvements. This increases the total market capitalization of all possible currencies from 70 trillion current US dollars. @tacotime With all due respect for your engineering efforts, there are simpler way to make PoW ASIC-proof : http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/31/13/PDF/bg10_ij.pdfMaybe this (or similar) hash , embedded into Scrypt (instead of SHA256) can do the trick. You ( as a HW expert) can judge, which classes (and there are more than plenty of them) of chaotic hash-functions are HW-proof. For ex. : the paper referred above has sisters, descr. 3 - 4 similar functions by the same authors. Chaotic hashes was excluded from SHA3 competition, namely because they are BAD in HW. There are completely another types Xaos-based hashes : http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/PDF/pdf2011/9Oct/Qing.pdfTaco, what do you think of this chaotic hash? ASICs and FPGAs might be defeatable, even if the problem is that the efficiency of energy consumption takes a hit. |
|
|
|
I think for any alternative coin to work it needs acceptance in the real world - like bitcoins. I feel there is more and more places accepting btc.
What are your opinions on ripple? I know it's not open source but when there is money making involved people usually have a big drive to make it work and develop applications for it.
It is going to be made open source in a few months. Ripple's architecture is almost perfect, and a very significant improvement over Bitcoin, except for its distribution method. An alternative is going to be developed by people who like Ripple but don't see its distribution practice in good light. I expect both of them to compete against each other over the next 10 years, with neither winning over the other. |
|
|
|
Still waiting...  |
|
|
|
|
You don't want to use gold certificates, as there is significant counter-party risk. You want to use intermediaries you can reasonably trust, such as VIA MAT, Brink's, and G4S (although all of them are exposed to government risk), through GoldMoney and BullionVault.
Bitcoin is however inherently superior.
|
|
|
|
Waiting...  |
|
|
|
XRP (Ripple), but it needs a derivation with an actual distribution algorithm, maybe based on misterbigg's idea, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147700.0, and the currency being derived from MC2's / Netcoin's and Decrits' advantages. MC2 / Netcoin, as it seems like a significant upgrade to Bitcoin. Decrits, even though I don't yet really understand it. It seems to be inflationary, which is a problem. |
|
|
|
|
