Nobody suggested this. The only way this could happen is if pool operators voluntarily adopted the new protocol, or new pools using it were created and became popular.

Why do you seem so angry?

I apologize, no sarcasm was intended, but I see my tone can construe that.

Even though it's only been a short time since I've started thinking hard about the nature of government, it's difficult for me to recall the thought processes that once led me to believe it was necessary. I do not see any reason why a monopoly on the provision of law and law enforcement is necessary or desirable in order to regulate the interactions between individuals. There are systems that can be used to mitigate risk from both a buyer and seller's perspective (escrow, reputation). There are also systems prevent disputes and settle them when they occur (contracts, arbitration, reputation).

If you have specific questions on what tools you can use, I'm sure the community would be more receptive to those. If you're wondering how individuals can hope to interact without the state as a mediator, I suggest you check out some libertarian sites such as Mises.org.

This seems like a fantastic idea. I look forward to seeing how this project pans out. I'll be more than willing to test the software when that time comes.


Does it really matter? Every participant is pseudonymous anyway, there's no identifying information. Even if there was, is there anything private about the number of shares submitted? I mean, you can see every transaction made in the Bitcoin block chain, is that an issue?

Nobody would be forced to use this system if they didn't want to share their shares for whatever reason.

When you buy something from the store and want to return it, do you call the police or other government officials? Or do you go to the store and ask them to take back the item and refund your money?


If they care about their reputation, and they don't have a reason to believe that you are scamming them, of course they will.

Shouldn't this be in Off Topic?

This is fantastic. While I myself hold some of the "don't say" views, I agree that they need not be shared by anyone else in order to find bitcoin attractive as a medium of exchange or store of value.

As far as terminology, I prefer "decentralized digital currency", as I think that differentiates bitcoin from fiat and other virtual currencies (not decentralized) and physical commodities (not digital).

Mining is completely tangential to the acceptance of Bitcoin. Mining serves a valuable purpose, which is to secure the network against attack. But the initial money must come from somewhere, so a subsidy was added - when you find a block you can reward yourself with 50 BTC.

This has almost nothing to do with the use of Bitcoin as a money.


Mining is profitable, otherwise difficulty would decrease.


What are you talking about? Perhaps you would be better off discussing this on a forum of your native language?

Ok, so we agree that hoarding and saving are exactly the same thing? Then why use the word hoarding, which has a distinctly negative connotation?

This is specifically the part of your post with which I take issue:


You imply that hoarders are a subset of savers, and that it is less detrimental to punish them compared to the savers. I don't understand this view at all.


I'm merely taking issue with your biased terminology, which seems to be at the core of your argument for the use of demurrage in the first place.

Unless you can define "hoarding" in a way that does not also include "saving", please stop using this bullshit term.

Any of these in this list: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes#IPv4_Nodes

For example, your bitcoin.conf might look like...


Or your command line...

You can try adding one or more fallback nodes. Either modify (or create) your bitcoin.conf to have one or more lines like...


or add one or more of the following arguments to your command line...

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

The difficulty for which the block was generated is encoded into the block header. The "length" of a chain is actually the sum of all of its constituent block's difficulties.

You're projecting your subjective value judgements onto everyone else.

What are these supposed objectives and in what way do dark pools violate them?

May I also remind you that MtGox is a private enterprise and you are free to not use it if you do not agree with the way it engages in business.

Fucking authoritarians.

But currently there is no way to tell bitcoind to give you work of a specific difficulty and for a specific public key.

Did you just say that competition == monopoly? Quite the doublespeak.

Assuming that you don't ACTUALLY think that, why is competition desirable in all realms other than law? Why is monopoly bad except for in law? Think about it, that is the defining aspect of the state. Why should the state force you to pay for its services when we do not accept that of any business?

Can someone define "hoarding" in a way that is incompatible with "saving"? In my opinion, the two are one in the same. Hoarding is just what one person calls another's saving "too much".

Doesn't a demurrage charge upon spending actually discourage the consolidation of multiple outputs into a single one?

I don't think "encouraging" investing is a good goal for a money. Doing is only an attempt at modifying people's preferences to bring about and end result that you prefer, as opposed to one they prefer.

It would be interesting to see a chart of your tips over time, set against the exchange rate.

Were your earlier tips smaller amounts, perhaps from people without a large number of bitcoin, and when the exchange rate went up they could no longer afford to spare even that small amount?

You still need a way to get work at a specific difficulty and for a specific public key

Do you pay a fee by default or no? What's keeping you on .15 instead of upgrading?