|
Looks like another opportunity to say: The silk road rules. Keep up the good work enabling medical freedom and keeping people out of the dark web of prescription narcotics and powerful drug pushing monopolies!
|
|
|
|
The cleverest way to bootstrap (handle initial distribution) imo would be to allow people to buy in to the new chain by destroying their bitcoins in a specified manner to 'move' them into the new chain. But really that is just a way to allow people a one-way ticket into a breaking change version of Bitcoin, not a completely new system.
I think the cleverest way to bootstrap would be to pick a bitcoin block and then look at the bitcoin balances of that block and copy them to the new genesis block. Then every bitcoin user would become a newcoin user automatically and they would be inclined to at the very least install the new client, copy their private keys to it and sell their newcoins. Great idea thanks  This would be a good way to bootstrap a test coin with no inflation to see how mining for fees only will pan out. Edit: No pun intended |
|
|
|
Why don't we use our resources to educate computer users and help prevent botnets from becoming as large a problem as they are.
Oh, I'm sorry, forgive me. I forgot that this was about money and not people.
Yes it is about money. That's the reason bitcoin exists ... even the name tells you that. Preventing botnets is about money. The botnets exist because they can make money, people want to stop them coz they are using other peoples computers to make money. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/p2p-botnets-the-bigger-they-come-the-faster-they-fall.arsIt helps to be clear, it seems you are talking about -involuntary- botnets. Bitcoin is a giant botnet, a mining rig is also a smaller botnet. Just to be clear, there is absolutely no a priori reason that the bitcoin network would care who pays for the power. |
|
|
|
now.. on the topic.
As much as i enjoy the bitcoin project , you can understand that its still immature(there are no applications, ease of use) for use in everyday transactions. A 50-60-70... yr old cannot use / understand this "bitcoin thingie", they do not own a computer and so on.
Although it would be an interesting project, in real world terms its too soon for something like this.
If you manage to say educate your grandparents to make/accept payments buy showing a qrcode in their smartphone , we could start discussing about it. until then, stop spreading fud
Well that depends, I've worked with 70 year olds who are very much clued in and I've worked with 50 year olds that can barely send a text. That 70 year old was an economist before he retired, on the other hand the 50 year old is a carpenter. You can see how that works, since the carpenter never had to touch a computer in his life. However same does not go for his 20 year old son who is in the same trade but grew up with computers and consoles. On the other hand the economist was using computers at one form or another since the 70ies. So it's not about age as much as it's... well, should I say "class"? Don't know, maybe "background"? In general you're right these things aren't necessarily linear with age. On the other hand we are talking about some kind of social change, and as with science, technology, enlightenment in general, there is much social inertia to hold back change. Traditionally the only way to combat this inertia is to wait for the people who can't handle it to die off. That's the way scientific revolutions proceed, and I don't immediately see a compelling reason that coins should be any different. Coins won't be mainstream until most of the folks who were weened on fiat have moved on. |
|
|
|
try bitinstant  |
|
|
|
The cleverest way to bootstrap (handle initial distribution) imo would be to allow people to buy in to the new chain by destroying their bitcoins in a specified manner to 'move' them into the new chain. But really that is just a way to allow people a one-way ticket into a breaking change version of Bitcoin, not a completely new system.
I think the cleverest way to bootstrap would be to pick a bitcoin block and then look at the bitcoin balances of that block and copy them to the new genesis block. Then every bitcoin user would become a newcoin user automatically and they would be inclined to at the very least install the new client, copy their private keys to it and sell their newcoins. Great idea thanks This would be a good way to bootstrap a test coin with no inflation to see how mining for fees only will pan out. |
|
|
|
|
OK I agree. I finally figured out how bitcoin is deflationary.
What it took for me was reading the current thread about "how many coins are lost" as well as the article about braincoins. Braincoins are cool, but many are likely to go the route of their hosts.
My problem was that I was short sited. Bitcoins are inflating at 40% annually I thought, what is all this bs about a deflationary currency? I'd like to congratulate the forethought of those worried about deflation already, and admit my mistake. We should indeed describe a system with it's economic impact averaged over several generations. While I might not live to see net monetary deflation of the coin, others will.
|
|
|
|
If you were to pay off all of the debt in the world, there would be no fiat cash, period. Every dollar that is printed (digital or otherwise) is owned as collateral by the shareholders of the central bank that print it, plus interest.
Are you telling me you know the history of every dollar created? I don't think so. We have no way to know about every dollar that is printed, other than to trust a random guy on the forums to tell us or some other economist who has a fancy degree and knows a secret handshake to tell us. Maybe somebody at the bank made a mistake and added 5 zeros to your account balance, creating dollars which are not backed by your debt. Better go check, because it's very illegal not to report that and you can be damn sure that nobody would ever break the law for short term personal gain. [/quote]
The money is given value by legal tender laws; ergo, people have to accept it for all debts. To add salt to the wound, you don't even own the money you hold. It can be garnished and deleted by inflation. It's only of value to you by the contractual license of force: If you incur a debt, you can force the currency down your debtor's throat with a policeman by your side.
With Bitcoin, it only has value on a voluntary-basis. People will not take it because they have to but because they want to and choose to do so. To me, that's the most valuable thing about Bitcoin as a digital currency and why it's growth will be exponential: It's growth will come from the will of the people and not coercion.
Yes, good points there, this is an attractive feature. Personally I think the killer app feature of bitcoin is that monetary supply fraud (e.g. counterfeiting) is not just illegal but impossible. |
|
|
|
"The maximum amount available of BTC-e (USD) at this time is $0.99" Looks like I missed the party |
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that the algorithms have historically improved at a pace comparable to moore's law, at least for the cases of factoring large numbers and discrete logarithms.
|
|
|
|
How to distribute these coins ?
What about the early adoption unfairness?
Without new coins, who will mine it , before it grows through 1000k txes per day ?
+3. The system the OP outlines might look stable as a running currency but there is simply no way to start it, well, other than something like the way Satoshi implemented. Unless of course, you can find a different answer to fin's three questions. |
|
|
|
I'm interested in finding a solution Pay high transaction fees, such as 25% of transaction. If fees are higher than block rewards, the transactions will be excluded only by fool. Problem solved! Thanks MM It's not an issue now, but better to think ahead. Miners and pools need to start publishing a schedule of minimum fees for transactions they will accept, and I guess their relay IPs. Similar to the problems discussed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51712.0;all |
|
|
|
Haha nice thread.
I doubt there will be that much interstellar trade, most things would be done locally.
Even with inter system trade I think different systems would be used for on planet of interplanetary trade.
Innovations could always be traded though and while individuals might not live long enough, families and various empires might trade before dying.
Since maintaining the block tree would be so hard on galactic scale, I think they would just trade innovation streams directly though.
Unless we make mini wormholes and manage to communicate or even travel through them of course.
Yeah, superluminal travel would change the protocol a bit. I like the idea of trading innovation streams. Some authors like Neal Asher have wormholes and coins which are etched crystal or memory of some sort, presumably some private key is etched in the crystal and then if you ever go back to the originating system (with your e.g. "New Carth Shillings") you can make your transaction on the local network. Verification issues I haven't seen really tackled however. If you want to get a bit wilder take a look at Charles Stross' "Accelerondo", where virtually captured newly discovered sentient species are used as currency by.. well I won't spoil it for you. |
|
|
|
Thinking about it some.. I really don't believe you'd have much of a forking problem, at least at a solar system scale. Realistically the majority of hashing power will be located here on Earth for the forseeable future. With that caveat, it'd almost be guaranteed the longest chain would always be the Terra chain. You are looking at the same 51% attack scenario... in order for a serious fork to happen, you'd have to have close to 50% of total network hash capacity located a significant distance away from Earth. Actually, for just about any real non terra based mining, you'd have to have a huge investment to start up or you'd be guaranteed to always lose on the longest chain contest. I can't see this happening.
Sucks for those Martian miners. But their only chance to make any dough would be a mars-coin branch.
Sigg
I feel like there should be some ratio between distance and required hashing power to determine fork probability. Like if Pluto is 300 light minutes away, if you had 3.3% of the hashing power (10/300) you could have a realistic chance of getting a block beforehand and creating a Pluto fork. But what this forgets (and you seemed to intuitively understand) is that earth is going to be continually sending those blocks about every 10 minutes, overwriting any short forks that may arise. Essentially this will make it impossible to mine the farther from earth you are, unless you are large enough to then become the primary node. It will also take 600+ minutes to confirm any transactions on Pluto. So yes, and large fraction of distance from the primary network will make mining useless, unless the new locations approach 50%, in which case there is serious chance for the two locations to be 2-3 blocks out of sync and completely fork. This seems to intuitively support the idea of multi-layers of bitcoin. One that has for example a 1 day average block creation to transfer between worlds. Yes, well if you are travelling interstellar distances you probably won't be concerned with waiting a few centuries for block confirmation. Once every few galactic rotations somebody might find a block of even greater difficulty than the long count block. Difficulty adjustment for this layer will be slow But what should the reward be? Hey pass that over here. |
|
|
|
Call me when we become a class 2 civilization
lol, sorry for repeat thread then and good work folks i think we are still class 0 so don't hold your breath |
|
|
|
The network implementation as is, in particular the delay between blocks, means that the network cannot work on a large scale system. The network will lose coherency and forks will develop as nodes become separated by distances approaching 10 light minutes. For reference, sometimes Mars is further away from the Earth than that. A series of nested chains with increasing delta T targets and difficulties will be required to have a coherent network for interplanetary or interstellar communities. Lets think ahead folks  |
|
|
|
The supply of coins grows at the same rate regardless of demand. Stability requires a flexible supply increase to correspond with demand increase. This limitation will be an impediment to the growth of Bitcoin commerce.
Your logic is the product of living under an inflationary economic system with a gaping security hole. The truth is that economic stability is higher under an inflexible money supply. This is also the case historically when one considers the stability created e.g. in the 19th century under a relatively fixed quantity of physical specie. The increase in stability is because demand increase (or decrease) will meet market forces and equilibrium can be reached. Manipulation of the money supply only hinders the ability of the free market to respond to changes, especially when the exact amount of the manipulation is kept secret from market participants. The only limitation caused by an open money supply is a limitation on inflationary fraud. |
|
|
|
Maybe not a good place for this, but I want assign some coins to the chain which can only be spent if N out of M private keys sign the transaction. What's the best way to do this? Thanks |
|
|
|
Honest miners  is there such a thing as a dishonest miner? Ones that willingly support attempts at laundering stolen money You might as well say the miner willingly supports the (insert your favorite crime here) because the transaction included in the block was payment for (insert stuff you don't like here). Getting miners to look for money laundering attempts is like getting auto manufacturers to avoid making getaway cars. |
|
|
|
amencon@page1: "Do the people that find themselves in possession of laundered stolen coins have the same opportunity to protect themselves?"
Yes:
1: Don't publish your public keys. Keep them as secret you would keep your private keys.
They are already published on the block chain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
