I'd be willing to patrol the forums a bit and clean out the spam. I'm already on a lot anyway, and I'm pretty well invested in the health of the community at this point. Though I understand if you're reluctant: I'm still relatively new here.

Depends on the rhetoric swirling around in the bitcoin community at the time. It's possible that we could sell governments on the idea if we undertook to do so. Though bitcoins are a cash analogue, they are ultimately more trackable due to the existence of the blockchain. If a government were to get ahold of a mapping of addresses to identities, calculating tax owed by an individual from bitcoin activity would be as simple as mining the blockchain for data. If a country moved to using bitcoins exclusively as legal tender, they could feasibly replace most of their tax departments with a computer program.

I like the B with the four stripes best. I'm opposed to using a symbol already in use by another currency.

That said, this discussion is very similar to the one over here:
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=369.0

I don't know, I think that in this case a fork would be the only way the inflationary minority could try out their system. Discussing it is fine, obviously. I think ShadowOfHarbinger is just frustrated. If you have anything new to add to the discussion, say it. I don't think arguing for the trunk to go inflationary is going to get anywhere, though. As was said before, the deflationary model is a great attraction for a lot of the people here.

+10

Well said, ShadowOfHarbinger, to that and all I omitted. Whether or not casascius has ulterior motives (a definite possibility), their arguments fold in on themselves.

As for me, I am not so cynical as to believe people are naturally selfish to the point of self-harm. (For neglecting the network would amount to self-harm.) Such people do exist, but the majority are not like that. It's this assumption that Satoshi's system is based on. I think it's a good call.

Eh, we all have different tastes. I honestly kinda like its baroque quality. I don't think we should rush to replace our current logo with it, but it is nice. We'll see which one persists.

You know, it seems to me that a person could create a crude form of leverage by directing a botnet attack on the network at large and then using whatever mining rig they have to mine while everyone else is impeded. This could be used to artificially lower the difficulty and increase the percentage of the network's hashing power their box is contributing. This could prove lucrative depending on how much leverage is possible using such a technique.

Hmm... not a bad idea. Less compatible than the image idea and a bit harder to implement, but it would at least make for cleaner HTML.

Then, of course, there is the first path mentioned.

What kind of outside variables are there? Mining scales exponentially. Furthermore, we've seen this sort of action happen in the free market before. First there was IBM, then there was Microsoft. They own well over half the market share. If we want to keep the network from falling under the control of a single person or a small cabal, we will have to take steps to ensure that a Microsoft or IBM never emerges in the bitcoin network. The problem would be even more insidious for us because there would be only one product and no for clusters to differentiate themselves. The various products of mining clusters are qualitatively the same. There would be no room for a cluster with a sustainable competitive advantage to emerge. It's good that the incentive for an individual to own a large cluster will slowly diminish. The ideal network model would consist of a large number of small clusters working together to create a secure network. A system that encourages monolithic clusters would only hurt us.

I think that if we stick to a deflationary model, transaction fees will prove to be profitable enough. There still exists the potential for an exponential earnings curve there, but growth from transaction fees will likely be so gradual that it shouldn't matter much. If it turns out that transaction fees aren't enough to keep people mining, then we come back to the concept of security audits. If an audit shows that the network is vulnerable to a cluster that likely exists, then it will be up to those with the most to lose (i.e, those with the most bitcoins) to allocate boxes to "mining." (Though at that point the term "mining" will be a misnomer.)

I honestly think that the cause of keeping our currency network safe will be compelling enough to attract a sufficient number of miners, especially if the data on our network's security is easily accessible. There are massive networks dedicated to such tasks as searching for extraterrestrial life and folding proteins whose participants receive no incentive beyond the knowledge that their idle cycles are being used to make the world a somewhat better place.

An inflationary model just seems rather unattractive to me. If given the choice between holding a currency in an inflationary trend or holding a currency in a deflationary trend, I would rather hold the latter. If we succeed in our goals, the early adopters will end up spending their bitcoins. Yes, they will be fabulously wealthy, but I have a hard time seeing that as a good reason for decreasing the wealth of the community as a whole via inflation.

Just my 2btc. What do you think?

Wow, that looks good. Impressive that you did that in just a day. Are you a graphic designer, or just good with Photoshop/Gimp?

I have a second, so I'll go into a little more detail:
With miners getting 50btc per block ad infinitum we end up creating an exponential earnings curve. Whoever is ahead on that curve will eventually see their lead greatly exaggerated such that the majority of bitcoins created each day will be created by their cluster. This will be accompanied by their overshadowing the power of the rest of the network. They will comprise over 50% of the total network's computing power which, as I understand, is all that is necessary to create a hostile takeover.

Okay, girlfriend is pulling me away. Let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

Thanks!

Haven't read the entire thread yet and don't really have time to explain my ideas in detail, but I feel they're important enough for me to at least give you my conclusion ASAP:
If we move to an inflationary model with miners always getting 50btc for solving a block, this will lead to a single interest controlling the majority of the network. If that interest proves at all hostile or even unscrupulous, it could prove to be the end of bitcoins. At least with the current model we're rewarding the people who put the hard work in to get the ball rolling in the first place.

My thoughts exactly. The problem with free market theory, aside from assuming that people are rational actors who can be counted on to do what is in their own best interests, is that it does nothing to prevent crashes of things that can only afford to suffer one crash. I do not doubt that it would take only one hostile takeover of the bitcoin network to leave it in smoldering ashes, especially if that takeover occurs after bitcoins have reached a wide degree of acceptance.

A good way of handling this would be to have an agency (or two: this is the free market, after all) keep tabs on how much computing power needs to be in the network to keep bitcoins secure from various levels of attack. I do think that the majority of people are ethical and interested in doing what is best for them and those they are close to, so making known the state of the network as well as what, if anything, needs to be done to secure it, would probably be a good idea.

Someone needs to write a Firefox/Chrome/IE extension to support that scheme.

Okay, I just finished reading all 10 pages of this discussion. It seems to me we are divided into two camps:

1. Those who want a symbol we can start using right away.
2. Those who want a unique symbol that we won't really be able to use online until we manage to get a character into the unicode set (which could be a few years considering it took the Thai government about a year of lobbying to get their country's currency symbol into that set, a task easier than the one we would face as a mere confederacy of nerds.)

I think we ought to decide which approach would be better for us as a community.

There is, of course, a middle path: we could create a custom symbol and then host it as an image somewhere for the whole community to use as if it were a character.

If we decide path 1 is best, then my votes are for β, Ƀ, or Ⓑ (in order of preference.)
If we decide path 2 or the middle path is best, well, you've seen my suggestions.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the feedback! I came up with two other ideas too. Here they are, along with another rendering of the first one I posted:


These are crude renderings, but they should prove a good basis for any typographers who may come along later. I derived the two new ideas from the symbol for the yen, the currency of Satoshi's ostensible homeland.

What you said about it potentially being confused with the @ symbol got me thinking. You're right, that would look rather odd. I came up with another symbol which I've written down on a scrap of paper and photographed. You can see it below. It avoids the problem of looking like any other currency symbol or symbol it is likely to be used in conjunction with and it is easy to write.



What do you think?

Bidding Pond doesn't, but I'm sure they'd be up for creating a simple script to return a list of items recently sold as JSON or XML data. You'd just have to e-mail them and tell them what you're doing. As for Amazon, it looks like they do have an API based on this forum post I found:
http://www.chipmunk-scripts.com/board/index.php?forumID=43&ID=9811

My girlfriend and I like myrkul/Gokhan's idea. We tried it out a few times and it's rather easy to write. Plus we think its reminiscent of the @ symbol, quite apropos for a digi-currency.

Well said, eMansipater. I'm not personally an anarchist either, nor am I much one for conspiracy theories. I simply see the value in switching to a currency that is decentralized and limited in quantity. I would much rather have my government sanction bitcoins (provided they do not attempt to control the network) than oppose them. Not everyone is willing to break the law. Opposition from governments would severely limit our user base.