I am entirely willing to listen to honest criticism.

This, however, is not:


1) I did not say I "wanted" a slow adoption, I said I would "expect" it. LTC has been out for almost a year, and it has what, a $10k market cap? The cryptocraze has already happened and everybody is aware of the deal, yet LTC has not made any significant ground on bitcoin. Probably because it's totally useless, but I am only trying to be honest about the potential of the second round of cryptocurrencies.
2) There is no deprivation of early adopter profit. It just isn't a subject I spend much time on. In the proposal I talk about 5x the coins for the first 3 years. It might be 9x for a year, then 6, then 3, I don't know. Again, it's just not important at this point. I'm trying to focus on something new rather than another pyramid commodity, so my priorities are elsewhere. No, there won't be 3 million percent returns like the bitcoin early adopters enjoyed, but there will also not be a stigma about being a "late adopter" or the risk of being left holding the bag.


Hey look, the same illogic used in bitcoin arguments. It's a currency! It's a stock! It's a commodity! Get in on the ground floor while you still can, because we'll eventually settle on what it is, probably after taking your money! PS - You probably shouldn't mention facebook again in this context considering how it was manipulated and cost people millions of dollars.

lol ok bro I haven't attacked anything about your currency, all I did was ask questions that did not get answered. So I stopped paying attention.

Taking quotes out of context or misrepresenting my ideas does not make you stand any taller, btw. I'm glad you've got an ego complex to go along with your just-another-bitcoin-clone though.

I tried asking about this in the main thread but was summarily ignored.

The new problem that has not been solved is simple: bitcoin is a commodity, decrits will be a currency.


This is a big, unaddressed issue. I can code, but I'm no professional. I think I'm going to start coding portions of it to get people interested and see if I can get a few more on board. Unfortunately network protocol programming is way beyond my abilities, so I will definitely need help with that.


The money supply of BTC is set in stone, so the problems that arise from that will never be fixed.


In the consciousness stream linked in the OP I talk about an account restrictions block where people could put restrictions on what an account can do without the master key or whatever. Early stage of ideas, but it will happen and no one should be foolhardy enough to trust a site that won't identify its cold wallet and the restrictions on it.

I would expect a slow adoption of the currency and it doesn't bother me. Why? Because bitcoin is doomed to fail. The idea is absolutely ingenious; the execution fatally flawed. Businesses are not interested in bitcoin as is anyway. It boils down to a speculative digital pet rock, nothing more.

And a complete waste of time in the grand scheme of things. Too many things need to change; why just build another stepping stone instead of going for it all?

If this is what you believe, then why do you argue so heavily for deflation? I am so tired of bitcoin proponents switching what it is they believe is what makes bitcoin so great on a fricken dime to derail the argument.

Any cryptocurrency can have the same functionality and security as bitcoin. People will likely flee it when they start getting tired of the manipulation and see other currencies that are much more stable.


Nobody needs to buy up all the bitcoin, 50% was already given away to the first 100k or so people, with the other 7 billion to fight over the second 50%. 10-20% was given to the group that started bitcoin, a group that has since disappeared from the project after retaining complete anonymity. The kings have already been made. It is only a question of how they plan on using that power.

I wholeheartedly agree that the current incarnation of fiat is the cause of many of the world's economic ills. I do not agree that the reason behind this is an increase in the money supply.


These are effects that are essentially and intentionally programmed in via central banking. I agree that it is a problem with how the money is distributed rather than the fact that there is more money. Deflation, especially bitcoin's version of deflation, does not even try to solve this problem. Blame it on the fall-guy of inflation and pretend that deflation is the answer rather than attacking the core of the problem: distribution of new money. Since in bitcoin there really won't be any new money very soon, the distribution of "new money" comes in the form of appreciating currency. Who does this universally benefit? Those with lots of currency.

The same scenario that exists today with banks and the same scenario that causes the business cycle and depressions would be just as common under bitcoin were it the world's currency. Power is heavily concentrated just as it was under gold. I see no particularly meaningful outcomes that are different from the gold standard or fiat. Bitcoin will allow the powers that be to manipulate the currency to unjustly benefit themselves at the cost of everyone else. Except that people will quickly get sick of that shit and use another cryptocurrency or switch back to fiat since now they have a choice in the matter.

Gold is no longer a currency anywhere on this earth. I'm not sure how you consider that strong. But if you read the history as to how we got to the point we're at now, it all flows to the Rothschilds in the 1700s creating central banks. The reason they had this ability was because their family was massively wealthy in gold and they, simply put, bought governments by financing wars. Gold was the key reason why we have the shitty currencies we have today. It is not a coincidence that the first draft of the Federal Reserve Act of the US was drafted on a private island owned by JP Morgan.

You are right, and the reason why it isn't here is because I went over and over this stuff with the Encoin proposals. That's not an excuse, but I got tired of repeating myself and get into the habit of feeling that bitcoin's major problems are self-evident.

The "how" is explained under the money creation section, though some of the "whys" are probably not that clear.

BTC's only mechanism for changing the protocol is in the hands of relatively few mining pool operators. Google the BIP16/BIP17 fiasco if you're curious. Plus many changes will take a year or more to be realized, while this system can quickly resolve protocol issues.

No, contrary to bitcoin. But if someone does attempt to manipulate the currency, or if banks decide to stop lending to cause a credit crisis (which gives them the opportunity to buy up durable goods at highly deflated prices--see the ongoing mortgage crisis), the people can create new currency and effectively diminish the power of the banks or manipulators. This is a powerful, powerful idea that is absolutely necessary, imo, to get rid of the business cycle and the constant siphoning of wealth and productivity from the people to the banks.

It serves several aspects: 1) you don't need to mine to get new money, so any monopoly over mining is powerless; 2) if the market expands rapidly, the price will be much less volatile as 10x the currency is created for every 1x mined--this is great for new business opportunities and will entice entrepreneurs rather than scare them off; 3) existing accounts receive new money and people who transact receive new money--incentives for saving and spending (and receiving!) in a growing economy, not massively hoarding. Instead of just increasing the value of the coin, more coins are created instead. But people who have faith in the currency should be and are rewarded, just like bitcoin. But bitcoin only rewards those who hold many coins. There is little incentive for new adopters (except to hope that there are more adopters after them) and there is little incentive to actually transact. This changes that.

Yes, but it puts the power in the hands of a few people; hardly decentralized. Because of the bandwidth and storage costs, it even makes sense for this to happen with bitcoin which is why reducing storage and bandwidth dramatically was a big part of the encoin proposals. So that the everyman can be a part of the network. In Decrits, you will actually get paid just for being a transmitting node too!

The more the network can support the better. It makes it harder to attempt a denial of service, it makes it harder for "evil entities" to destroy the network, etc. Because decrits is based on shareholders rather than proof of work, a potential but costly attack on the network would be to try to take control of the majority of the network reputation and start dropping valid transactions or ignoring honest shareholders transaction blocks in an attempt to get them removed. The transmitting nodes will be the defense against that. You can't fool all the people all the time, but if there's only a few people to fool...

There are no stupid questions. I posted this so people could question and comment. Like I said though, I have a habit of leaving stuff out because of so much discussion that has gone into this proposal prior to this thread. There is a lot of stuff. I have literally spent hundreds of hours coming to this point where I think I have done a seriously solid job of proposing what could be a very successful alternative currency to bitcoin. I'll work on an abstract.

I suppose you mean inflation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

This little empire that lasted for 500+ years used a form of fiat where coins were worth 10-20x the value of the metal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire

This little empire used sticks of wood as currency for 700+ years. It only stopped because of the Rothschilds' involvement and the Bank of England in the 1700s.

Native Americans used wampum for who knows how long.

Many cultures used salt.

So fiat or inflationary currencies have been in use for probably as long as gold. The problem with modern fiat is that the ability to manipulate it was taken from the example of gold (central banks).

As you can probably tell I'm the furthest thing from a bitcoin apologist, but floating point errors are definitely not a hazard. BTC is wholly represented with integers, where 1 BTC is actually 100000000 "satoshis". Many people have suggested moving the decimal place in the user interface so that people don't feel bad about having millibtc. I believe the current UI actually does support it now as an option.

Tytus: there is no point in creating a bitcoin fork where the mining reward doesn't halve. First of all, even if it doesn't halve, you can still expect a very price-level deflationary currency as the rate of inflation of the money supply will continually dwindle compared to the whole. Secondly, creating a fork means that everyone who has coins on bitcoin1 has coins on bitcoin2. This just isn't a good idea for a number of reasons--like spending currency on one side will be a totally valid transaction on the other side, at least in the beginning. Chaos, yes. Another reason is the difficulty will be copied, and it's unlikely a significant portion of miners will switch to the fork, so no one will be able to produce any blocks for a very long time.

You bring up many valid concerns that will almost always fall on deaf ears around here, especially in this thread. The latest and greatest argument is that inflation causes overconsumption and deflation is good for the planet, yada yada yada. Problem is, as you point out, fiat isn't going anywhere so bitcoin doesn't help the planet because people will just invest and overconsume with fiat. And maybe bitcoin can be a fun toy or a way to send money anonymously or over long distances.

If you are interested in an idea for an unbound currency, see my signature.

I think it might be a tad bit early for a credit union. Without a widespread demand for bitcoins, they are going to have to play an awfully tough game of managing USD vs. BTC assets. If people want to spend BTC, presumably the CU would convert BTC to USD (a debit card?) which will put a lot of pressure on to make sure there is ample USD. They won't be able to loan BTC so there won't be any interest on that. Converting BTC to USD for loans is going to have to require using Mt.Gox and paying exchange fees and risk volatility. And, at least in the States, CUs are only allowed to operate in a very regional basis, so you limit your customer base quite significantly.

Really, mining? You mean to say that when 50% of all the money to ever be made will be made by December, that this will somehow bridge the gap in poorer countries? Yeah. Right.

Fictional means fake, btw.

It's also alpaca socks.

Because new currency can be created. If someone spends a couple million to buy currency like what happened with bitcoin in June of 2011, rather than early adopter "quantitative easing" e.g. a bunch of old, cheap coins being sold on the market bringing the price down, people will create new currency until the price levels out to somewhere around the cost to produce plus a profit margin. Anyone attempting to manipulate the market upwards is guaranteed to lose money. Anyone attempting to manipulate the market downwards gives the opportunity for arbitrage whereby people will buy currency because it currently costs less than what it cost to produce. Energy, computer hardware, and time [to create money] define the value rather than a closed and limited commodity. There's no way to hoard all the coins. People will just make more and you will look foolish.

One of the great things with a system like this is that you don't need an exchange to determine the value. Anyone with access to a reasonable computer could determine how much effort including hardware, electricity, and time it would take to create X amount of currency and then realize that exchanging 2 coins for a loaf of bread is a reasonable value, for example. The tricky part was making it so that coins don't lose value due to efficiency gains in hardware, or if they do, that existing account balances are increased to make up for it. Thus part of the reason behind giving lots of coins away.

And it's also something any cryptocurrency can do. This is the popular argument that "bitcoin will be a payment processor, not a currency." Why would anyone use a payment processor that has such a volatility risk when there are less volatile options? Bitpay is almost as expensive as paypal for low-volume, more expensive for any reasonable business volumes.

see sig

There's two main reasons, imo. The great majority of all bitcoins will be distributed within the creator's lifetime. By like 2024 >90% of all bitcoins will be distributed. So reason 1: It is a massive, pyramidal profit incentive. Bitcoin proponents cry freedom, when the reality is the biggest names around here want to enslave people to bitcoin in the same manner that central banks do now. It's never going to happen though because other cryptocurrencies will spring up, and people will just spend their depreciating fiat rather than the economy actually working around bitcoin. Lending is a terrible idea in a deflationary currency, you'd have to be really stupid to take a loan, so no one will, so no businesses will owe bitcoin loans and won't need to accept bitcoin currency or pay employees in bitcoins. Just isn't going to happen. So there won't be any new wealthy elite created, just perhaps a few million made whenever they decide to crash the market. Then it can keep happening again if people are dumb enough (which they generally are) as prosperous businesses acquire larger and larger sums and are able to manipulate the supply just as what happened with gold.

Gold was such a better currency if you ignore history.

If you aren't aware, check the block chain to see how the difficulty remained at precisely 1 for the first 1.6 million bitcoins. Whoever started mining at the beginning was the only person still mining over a year later.

Reason 2: It was the simplest way to safely distribute the currency. Satoshi could have gone with a more wave-like distribution scheme (or "ease-in, ease-out") to more widely distribute the currency, but either way having a limited supply protects the currency from advances in computing technology and so forth.

See my sig if you want to read a proposal for something completely different and probably manipulation-proof.


If you want the exact reason for 21MBTC, it is what the curve works out to be. Start with 50BTC every 10 minutes for 4 years, then 25, then 12.5, and so on and you come up with just under 21M. If he had started at 100BTC, it'd be 42M.