I believe it is just a standard GPG warning saying that whatever they write in the name field doesn't mean that is proof of who they are. You probably need to add the key to your trusted list or somesuch.

Tytus, I revised the OP per your suggestion. I also changed the title as I think I was unconsciously trolling by calling it inflationary. We'll see how this one goes.

And this had everything to do with the free market working and absolutely nothing to do with a price deflationary currency. Just because a price inflationary currency may cause bad investment choices does not mean that a price deflationary one will cause good choices. Both interfere with the operation of a free market.

I could just as easily, and probably more accurately, say that the widespread adoption and innovation of computers caused price deflation. Competition in a perfect market causes price deflation because people will find new ways to be efficient and innovative because there is a profit motive. Industries that are not capable of keeping up with currency appreciation because for whatever reason their market is incapable of increasing productivity at the same rate or better than other industries will ultimately fail, and often unnecessarily (though certainly not always). You can't force innovation down the market's throat. A free market will do that on its own. The currency should not be the avenue deciding what is and is not worthwhile. The currency should be as neutral as possible.

Hashing algorithms are commonly used to store sensitive password data, yes. Creating rainbow tables is just a non-brute force way to more quickly find a common password for a given hash. But bitcoin doesn't use hashing for storing passwords and the data that is hashed is public knowledge, so there is nothing to hide behind a hash. Mining attempts to find a very unlikely hash value (one that begins with lots of zeroes) by brute-forcing extra data (the nonce value) into the existing data to come up with an acceptable hash value to win a block.

AFAIK only one has, and that was because of a bug in the software that allowed someone to create several billion coins. This was also very early on when a breaking change was easy to introduce.


D&T is right though that everyone, everyone, has to agree. Mt.Gox has to simply say "I reject your code change" and nobody in their right minds would use that fork since Mt.Gox is currently the center of the bitcoin universe. It can be done, but something like changing the coin distribution is never going to have a consensus and it is better to just create a new currency if you feel very strongly about such a thing.

I have actually thought about this idea for the cryptocurrency proposed in my sig. But, now that the optimizations of ECC that have come to light (especially Ed25519), and batch optimizations that don't exist currently in the bitcoin code, I don't think CPU time will really be much of an issue in the future. The bandwidth savings of using a 160-bit curve might be more significant though if a cryptocurrency were to be popular in poorer countries. Could save potentially 8-24 bytes per transaction, which might be significant. Hard to say. I don't know whether 160-bit curves can be batched with 256-bit curves though and that might present a problem where it is slower to process the 160-bit curves if there are not that many.

I was rude because D&T is a non-stop sycophant that can't imagine that there is something that bitcoin maybe didn't get right. It's not as if this has been our first exchange. "No bitshift? Must mean floating points!" Asinine. And he calls into question my ability to think like a programmer. His posts are almost always dishonest when it comes to bitcoin's shortcomings, so I often have to set him straight for the non-initiated that may be reading.

"Fair market value" is a much better indicator that isn't deceptive. Try using that rather than inflated market caps that any stock trader would get a bellyache over. "$50USD/day volume, $300k market cap, SOLD!"

Who was it that believes he knows what's best for the free market? Oh yeah, you. I'm just willing to try something different and see what happens.

You can think whatever you want of me if it helps you sleep at night. Doesn't make any of it true, though.

I better appeal to your fallacy, apparently. And I wasn't making the grandiose claim that my currency would make the history books; only pointing out that you cannot predict the future and your comments propose to stifle innovation because it is different from the status quo and therefore could never work. Unwiser words have never been spoken.

Source? $400T+ inflationary currency market vs. $100M and change of deflationary commodity?

"High inflation", source? The inflation rate isn't preprogrammed. And I assume by "one-half of the important functions [of] money" you mean a store of value. In which case, I must counter with the fact that existing currency holders are awarded 5x the amount of any new coins produced, without doing anything. If the market is naturally expanding, this is free money, pure profit. If the coin production is expanding due to efficiency gains in hardware and the difficulty protocols can't keep up, then the money is payment to maintain the value of existing accounts rather than allowing price-inflation to rob them of value. I also have an unmentioned idea that the coin multiplier may more heavily favor existing accounts if transactional activity does not seem to indicate a real expansion of the market.

The goal is to have a stable price level (or a stable account value over time) rather than an inflationary or deflationary one. Of course it won't be perfect, but if there is a little bit of price inflation it is either counteracted by existing account awards or the fact that it isn't banks and the wealthy elite that receive all the benefits of new currency, it is everyone. I only call it an inflationary currency because, for whatever reason, so many bitcoiners have taken to heart Milton Friedman's words about inflation always being a monetary phenomenon, sometimes even going as far to misapply it to Mises or another Austrian. Perhaps you would grok that if you chose to actually read and comprehend the proposal rather than seeing the word "inflation" and assuming the worst.

You heard it here first folks, subtraction is complicated and can't possibly be accurate across all systems. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY the coin distribution could be determined by subtraction because that means we would eventually resolve to a whole number rather than an ever decreasing amount that goes beyond the divisibility of the currency in 2140. Oh the huge manatee. Or if this really bothers you, I'm sure we could figure out a way to bitshift the amount of subtraction to come up with the exact same curve except without the stark halvings.

Remember when you first heard about bitcoin and tried to comprehend it? Yeah, took me several months too.


Did you just not read my post and fill in your own words? Because this has nothing to do with what I said. Your twin's argument is that 25->12.5 won't matter because of the price increases, but that is ridiculous since one day they will mine 25xprice, the next it will be 12.5xprice. That is quite significant.


Do I give a damn whether it's cut in half or it is a bit-shift (which btw, I never said cut in half)?


Apologizing, apologizing, apologizing. "Good lord suh, wesa cannah figga out how to lowah an award withoutta bitshift, suhh! subtrackshun hasna been invente yet" Give me a fkin break.


S-S-S-S-STRAWMAN

Seems like that computer should be more than adequate to teach kids how to use computers.

But perhaps you will actually get some response if you post some proof. Pictures of where you work, the kids, and so on. Otherwise you just sound like another person begging for money.

C'mon bro, the exchange rate is going to rise over time, and it certainly isn't going to double right after the switch from 25->12.5, so miners are going to take a big hit and the network TH/s is going to drop a lot, again (ignoring ASICs and what affect they might have). Satoshi made a mistake in having such stark drops. It would be much better if the exchange rate could rise gradually as the mining reward drops gradually. Oh well.

There are 3 main types of cryptography:

1) Symmetric cryptography - password based encryption that most everyone is familiar with. Not used at all in bitcoin.
2) Hashing algorithms - converting lots of data into irreversible gibberish. This is what bitcoin uses for mining and what ASICs are designed for.
3) Asymmetric cryptography/digital signatures - Totally different from symmetric or hashing and is what bitcoin uses for signing transactions and protecting coins and so on. An ASIC could be designed to brute force these, but the ones that are in development will not be capable of doing so.

Well TangibleCryptography, I'm not so sure about that. From 25->12.5, there need to be 25,000 transactions every ten minutes at the current .0005 fee to make up for the "loss". About 42 t/s, or about the same level of popularity as paypal. For it to not have a significant effect, the loss of 12.5 coins would have to be dwarfed by the transaction fees, meaning there'd have to be at least several hundred t/s. It could happen, but I still think 25->12.5 will be pretty significant and definitely not "not much of a splash".

why do we need 4 threads on this on the first page?

Not exactly. Gold mining has diminishing returns as the easy stores of gold have all generally been found. It becomes more and more difficult to search for gold and the resources required to do so get greater.


Well the question of the thread is what would you think would be the best model. I think it will make-or-break the currency because it won't act like a currency, it will forever act like a commodity.

30 years is a pretty long time frame, and bitcoin's ECC is only 128-bit security which crypto experts predict is only good until 2020 or so. Any attack that involves speeding up key breaking will probably be thwarted to some degree by adding another 32 bits.


I may be mistaken, but I remember reading that coinbase transactions are, by default, sent to a public key and not a hash. So if those early coins are indeed lost, they will eventually be found by someone else.

D - an unbounded supply that is determined by the number of people who want and work for new money. If you can guide the cost to produce new money and keep it somewhat stable, new money will only be produced when it is profitable to do so, such as when the network expands and demand increases. How different money would be if it actually took consistent effort rather than putting magical zeroes in a computer.

Oh yeah, I forgot we multiply the sell price by the total coins in existence and ignore the fact that $10k will empty the market.

Sweet, another bitcoinism. I deserve millions of percent returns for risking several dollars of electricity! Good lord what would you peons have done without my precious kilowatt hours? This is a much bigger risk than actually spending real money and getting burned by currstomodity manipulation.

To listen to the market, the market must be given a choice first. You are trying to put a damper on competition probably because you realize that your currency doesn't offer anything significantly different from bitcoin and, like litecoin, has no real chance of succeeding. I'll leave designing a successful currency to future history books rather than your insanely biased and unasked for opinion.