Bitcoin Forum
June 03, 2024, 05:17:02 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Flaw in the reward structure of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?  (Read 3980 times)
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 02:40:58 PM
 #61

People like you who claim this flaw aren't thinking things over realistically, if someone buys up lots of Bitcoins or gains a lot of them the price will rise because of demand and the volume in circulation while the price in dollars will certainly crash Bitcoin itself will remain unaffected. People are still going to be able to trade with the small amount of coins left and of course as others have pointed out in threads I've seen without using search 1 Bitcoin alone can be divided up into millions of decimals.

In theory if the Bitcoin becomes that valuable then we will be dealing in 0.100000's of Bitcoins rather than in full Bitcoins because owning a whole Bitcoin will be like being a billionaire in conventional paper money, the difference between the paper money and Bitcoin of course is that the volume can't be increased. So to make a long and tiring argument short, yes, BTC/USD price can be crashed, but Bitcoin itself will be fine, it's a bit like when MTGOX was hacked, people panicked, but the reality is Bitcoin is still here and still being traded. We also had the GBLSE taken down recently and that hasn't drastically affected everything either and then there was that glitch with the MTGOX exchange too, while that crashed the price for USD, Bitcoin itself could still be openly traded without problems using the clients.

I am thinking realistically, please re-read my post. I didn't argue about someone buying coins now, but already having them from early rounds back when they didn't cost as much, or anything at all. This is a flaw in the reward system IMHO.
Umm, that reward system where they could dribble them out gradually at $40 and get $40 * n_coins, rather than crash it to $1 and get perhaps $20 * n_coins assuming an average fill at half the price?

Can you explain the flaw here again?  I missed it.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 02:46:33 PM
 #62

I thought the making a profit by deliberate crashes myth was a myth?

Wasn't it argued that they would actually lose by attempting that since all they really do is give away their coins cheap?

On the other hand I have wondered since the $32 days of 2011 how the heck the price was being kept so low so long.

-MarkM-


It's not a myth. I know someone that sold during the mini crash a few nights ago at $42 and bought back at $35 and made 500 coins profit. This person was probably one of the main reasons for the crash as well, because he sold a sizable amount of coins (several thousands).

I personally sold at $42 and bought at $40 (gox lag...) and made several coins profit as well.

So a bunch of idiots threw away their coins cheap.

Changing the reward structure won't stop idiots from being idiots.

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
misterbigg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 08, 2013, 02:47:15 PM
 #63

I didn't argue about someone buying coins now, but already having them from early rounds back when they didn't cost as much, or anything at all. This is a flaw in the reward system IMHO.

A year from now, $50 coins will seem cheap.
codro (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 07:14:31 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2013, 07:53:59 PM by codro
 #64

Bitcoin was never pegged at a price, this is precisely what price discovery does, on top of this only miners were rewarded with coins and it was ALWAYS proportional to their contribution to the security of the network. Do you get it yet? these guys were PAID to run the Bitcoin network. There was never a free lunch and never a monopolistic clique that planned it. Nor was if for "fun", it was a job, and these guys got compensated for their hard work, hardware, and electricity. The software was released January 2009, free, available to all. If they got paid more than the latecomers, it's because they propped it up long enough and well enough so that others could get on board and help bear the weight, we should be worshipping these people, KnightMB is a hero in my books, he accrued over 300k in Bitcoins, because he used a cluster of CPUs he borrowed from Amazon (a guy you'd probably deride as an opportunist etc. etc.) and he also was instrumental in helping fix early problems that Bitcoin had https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9524#msg9524, he claims he already spent much of it but I sincerely hope he has a spare 50k lying around because he fucking deserves it.

You do realize that only one person mining could've kept the network running, right? Try understanding the protocol first. And before you cry 51% attack, get real - securing the network was not the primary reason people mined, you're delusional - and any sort of attack would've been circumvented easily. http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

And lol @ that guy blowing 300k worth of coins, some "apostle" he was if he spent that much that early. We're in the what? 4th year of bitcoin? You have your values seriously screwed up if that's the kind of guy you're worshiping, considering everything.


Actually we did know, and most of us are still here. The "proof" is because you're pissy that a vast number of early adopters are "endangering" the value of the coins you own because they hold too many. Logic. Funny, it was never marketed as anything less than a digital cash payment system, they weren't marketed as "internet points", and the second I discovered Bitcoin I was treating it like a cash system too, because like everyone else I had to mine to get them and that meant work, when CPUs were only just still fashionable I actually went and BOUGHT a computer just for mining because I wanted Bitcoins, they certainly weren't passing them out like flyers at a store, I knew I was getting something of value that was difficult to get. So did a lot of other people like Hal Finney, http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09975.html.

You're completely unfamiliar with how this started and what it was at first. You got here after it was already pegged to the USD.

Quote
You want gradual buildup, go to litecoin, theres your out, use it. Liquidate your BTC into LTC and bask in the market stability such a system bestows upon it's users.

Litecoin has the same curve as Bitcoin, it has the same problem.

Price discovery and adoption will stabilise the market, not manipulation of the supply. How would that work exactly? Does the system know when the market is stable and when it is volatile so it can spit out the "right" amount of coins. Which markets? which currencies are more influential than others? Should we prioritise currencies based on their political stability?  Adoption follows sentiment, and sentiment can only be gauged by price discovery, not some trickle that will slowly turn into a damn flood. Even Satoshi saw that distributing most of the coins quickly was better than any other option , and 4 years is hardly a short amount of time I might add.

Notice that Satoshi said "seems like the best formula". Doesn't sound like he was as convinced as you are, of course, in your own little world you must think you're smarter.


"[Bitcoins will] be distributed to network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half every 4 years. [...] When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
needed. It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=21312004

When you speak of "Satoshi's Grand Design" you quote the source, otherwise you look like a fool.


Lol, some source you quoted. That has no relevance to the fact that transaction fees were designed to be 0.01 and not 0.0005 as they are now. Blocks are already getting full as per the original design, so even 30 years from now, if the same limits were kept as now, miners would still only make 0.6 BTC from fees for every block they mine. They would've made 12 BTC otherwise, which would've been more than the subsidy a lot earlier than at the cutoff.


"Meaningful" hu? All I've heard from you is the sound of a baby having a fit. Miners from two years ago ARE your betters that ensured Bitcoin survived long enough so you could enjoy it. I'm incredibly grateful, and I also hope Satoshi has a sizable portion of Bitcoins because he damned well deserved every one of them. So did the early developers that got on board, and the early testers, and the ones that helped stimulate the economy by beginning the first exchanges, and the ones that jumped in on mining with their CPUs, GPUs, etc. so that the network remained secure. They ALL deserved every skerrick of value that their Bitcoins now derive.

Here you go again with the miner point, see #1. You're making miners look bad by defending them so much - seriously. I never accused miners of anything, I just pointed out how the system could've been designed to make more economic sense.


Price discovery and greater adoption will spread more coins into more hands. Stop having kittens over the price, sounds to me you've overreached in your investment in Bitcoin so cash out to something that will allow you to sleep at night.


Go re-read all of your replies and see how you're attacking me while I'm simply pointing something out without attacking anyone (unless provoked). I haven't overreached my investment and I don't have problems sleeping at night. Calm down.
lucb1e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2013, 08:06:58 PM
 #65

Someone sell bitcoins for 1$?  Shocked
I'd buy them! It's a hole in the market to sell BTC at $1 Grin
SimonL
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 113
Merit: 11


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:33:56 PM
 #66

You do realize that only one person mining could've kept the network running, right? Try understanding the protocol first. And before you cry 51% attack, get real - securing the network was not the primary reason people mined, you're delusional - and any sort of attack would've been circumvented easily. http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Actually no, it takes two nodes to run a Bitcoin network. Bro, do you even lift?

And lol @ that guy blowing 300k worth of coins, some "apostle" he was if he spent that much that early. We're in the what? 4th year of bitcoin? You have your values seriously screwed up if that's the kind of guy you're worshiping, considering everything.

Wow, it's like you are doing the heavy lifting lifting for me. I appreciate your dumbassery in print, but you're really not making this a challenge at all.

You're completely unfamiliar with how this started and what it was at first. You got here after it was already pegged to the USD.

This isn't even a challenge.

Litecoin has the same curve as Bitcoin, it has the same problem.

Uhuh... so That would explain why it's falling like a stone then... http://www.ltc-charts.com/period-charts.php?period=6-months&resolution=day&pair=ltc-btc&market=btc-e

Notice that Satoshi said "seems like the best formula". Doesn't sound like he was as convinced as you are, of course, in your own little world you must think you're smarter.

Moving the goalposts are we?

Lol, some source you quoted. That has no relevance to the fact that transaction fees were designed to be 0.01 and not 0.0005 as they are now. Blocks are already getting full as per the original design, so even 30 years from now, if the same limits were kept as now, miners would still only make 0.6 BTC from fees for every block they mine. They would've made 12 BTC otherwise, which would've been more than the subsidy a lot earlier than at the cutoff.

Yeah... you do realise you're full of it right? Remember those goalposts I mentioned? Funny how you make an absolute claim and then as soon as they look wobbly they become.... soluble.

Here you go again with the miner point, see #1. You're making miners look bad by defending them so much - seriously. I never accused miners of anything, I just pointed out how the system could've been designed to make more economic sense.

Backtracking, defending, justifying. You should do yourself a favour and just stop responding.

Go re-read all of your replies and see how you're attacking me while I'm simply pointing something out without attacking anyone (unless provoked). I haven't overreached my investment and I don't have problems sleeping at night. Calm down.

I'll let the post history speak for itself.
codro (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 08, 2013, 08:54:24 PM
 #67

Actually no, it takes two nodes to run a Bitcoin network. Bro, do you even lift?

One person, two nodes, right. Because one computer should be enough for everybody, I'm sure every serious miner only has one. Sounds legit.

Uhuh... so That would explain why it's falling like a stone then... http://www.ltc-charts.com/period-charts.php?period=6-months&resolution=day&pair=ltc-btc&market=btc-e

Short term gain != long term success.

As for your other arguments:
In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

You trolled this topic long enough. Goodbye.
nameface
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:23:16 PM
 #68

A market order to sell 311000 bitcoins right now would net 4278841.7722 USD and would take the last price down to 1.0000 USD, resulting in an average price of 13.7583 USD/BTC.

I'm not religious but I pray every day this happens.


+1
aurora
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 158
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 03:36:12 PM
 #69

if I had 300k btc this is exactly what I would do. Sell it all , make 4.2 mil, buy 300k btc back at $1, wait 2-3 years , do it again.

Dym.game
Double your money. Use Martingale/anti strategies. 1 to 1 odds
maxcarjuzaa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 188
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 03:55:31 PM
 #70

Codro: In your scenario is possible to BTC to touch $1, but just because an idiot sells all his btc to $1 does not means the rest are going to do the same, in fact, there will be a lot of people buying. If the price go down but there are no bad news any person with brain will buy more, not sell.So the price will recover very very fast. You can see in the prevous days what happend when someone dump a ton of coin. The price go down but recover very fast.
nameface
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 09, 2013, 04:15:27 PM
 #71

if I had 300k btc this is exactly what I would do. Sell it all , make 4.2 mil, buy 300k btc back at $1, wait 2-3 years , do it again.
This is thread is all about BTC vs. USD. We're early adopters ONLY motivated to mine, buy, and develop in bitcoin so they can profit relative to the USD? I thought the motivation was to change the global monetary system by inserting a disruptive technology? What do I know, I'm a bit of a newb.

Any 100k+ coin holders earned their coins building something, and I do not believe they will be easily motivated to decimate the price of btc just to gain a few million in fiat. Your hypothetical selloff scenario is wildly improbable.

The fact that an instant selloff of 300k would only tank the price to $1 is a great sign! Thousands of bitcoiners would grab all those coins back for $5, $10, $15, $20... within ONE DAY bitcoin would be at $25 again, and the 300k seller would've effectively screwed themselves out of a ton of value by selling into all of those stale buy orders at $10 or $20.

To think that bitcoin has become this widespread this fast, with as much media exposure, development, and growth as we're seeing, and an early adopter with 300k coins can only get a few million by dumping ALL of their coins! For me, this shows that the playing field is fair, that we're still early adopters, and that the balance of the reward structure must be working EXTREMELY WELL.
aurora
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 158
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 11, 2013, 03:47:40 AM
 #72

Nah. I dont see value of bitcoin in keeping it. I only make money when it sold. Why keep?

Dym.game
Double your money. Use Martingale/anti strategies. 1 to 1 odds
beckspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 931
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 11, 2013, 04:39:42 AM
 #73

Sorry if this was discussed before, couldn't find a thread discussing the implications of having a small reward to start, that then increases over time.

I know this has been done before, but I'm too lazy to search for it right now. I remember seeing a really nice looking "S shape" (imagine if the bottom half of the current curve looked like the top half, just inverted across the X and Y axes), it might have been by jgarzik. This actually may be more to codro's liking, as it would have a more gradual build up initially.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46622.msg554717#msg554717

Basically, an Ease in Ease Out curve would led us to poor adoption and network fragility, people are welcome to test this generation curve with any AltCoins out there (I suppose no one tried yet):




Because nobody would mine, since it is going to become easier with time anyway. And if nobody wants to start, you won't ever reach the later levels of the project. Early adopters _need_ to be rewarded, or there would be no early adopters at all, effectively killing Bitcoin before it even started. Remember, those coins were worthless when the project started. Yet people were spending electricity, buying hardware, buying coins with a _very_ uncertain future. Those who took those risks have to be rewarded.

This.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!