Bitcoin v2.0

[kstepyra]

Why 2.0?

It's simple:

1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.

2. Deflation. After introducing solution to first problem - we will have everyone with right money exchanged to BTC's. That's good, but consider that about 1% of people can lose their accounts due to an system crashes or smth. WE NEED to have for example additional 1% of the coins to be introduced to the system every year. This will stop people keeping money in the pockets like it is happening with the gold and will just keep accurate amount of bitcoins in move.

Fees would need to be - let's say 0.1% of the transaction. This way we will keep miners running and also we will have our network secured stoping spammers from sending mBTC or less transfers to crash network.

Sorry for my poor ugly english, it's not my native language.

BTW. i own some BTC's as i really belive in the IDEA of free currency, however this implementation have BIG disadvantages and it must be changed or exchanged to something else, otherwise we will se just small amount of users (mainly early adopters) in the network.

[mewantsbitcoins]

I am too beginning to think it's a ponzi scheme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcdE9ngx08

[Cusipzzz]

simple answer, start your own blockchain. distribute initial coins however you want. when it becomes more widely accepted and has more network power than Bitcoin then I will be the first to congratulate you.

No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.

No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.

[FreeMoney]

What do you think about people who invest in successful companies?

Resource allocation matters.  

[FreeMoney]

simple answer, start your own blockchain. distribute initial coins however you want. when it becomes more widely accepted and has more network power than Bitcoin then I will be the first to congratulate you on being rich. Then we'll all make Bitcoin 3.

No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.

No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.

[kstepyra]

Companies = work... apple microsoft did somethineg, early adopters didn't. They just use other people money basing on the idea.

edit: investing into company is something WAY different than investing in new currency. Dont mess two different things.


I know a lot of early adopters will even kill if there is need just to get more people in the system and get price higher. Not that kind of things world have already seen.
Let them be rich, but not 10% of the system money and NOT for nothing. And countries wont accept BTC unless it's fairly distributed at start. GL if you think it will be other way - for example Greece accepting it just like that. They will also get it as ponzi scheme.

And i don't mind getting my own network (no way to get more popular than actual system - it's first, it's like an gold). I am not too good programmer to get it work, i like current idea and i think that it should get into for example 1 billion people, but then should be started again distributing coins without mining - just as many $ you have - that many BTC's u will get.

[kiba]

Why 2.0?

It's simple:

1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.

One of Bitcoin's great virtue is its sociological consideration. How are you going to build an economy when nobody see a benefit in promoting this currency?

If you have inflatecoin and somebody started bitcoin, guess who's going to win?

[Pieter Wuille]

... but then should be started again distributing coins without mining - just as many $ you have - that many BTC's u will get.

That's exactly what exchanges will do, and already do.

Early adopters do not necessarily get rich - they only get rich if they saw the exchange rate increase and didn't sell, from the very start to that hypothetical future moment resist the temptation to cash out and risk losing something or everything.

Also, in general I agree a somewhat better introduction rate function could have been chosen, but I'm far from convinced what a better rate would be.

[Clipse]

If you need something new since you dont approve of bitcoin as it is, that is your choice and start a new chain.

It will all depend on how well it gets established in order to "compete" with bitcoin.

[bitcool]

Every country, government can be viewed as a Ponzi scheme, you can join them, or become a outcast.

People on the Mayflowers (and all those came to the New World) were sure Ponzi scheme perpetrators

[kstepyra]

Mining is just an good advertisement for the network 'MONEY for NOTHING' ? that's how 90% of the miners work.

Idea had to be spreaded somehow and it's working this way. Good. There was NO other option. But early adopters will be rich and any of the last adopters will need to work for them JUST like that?? Thats NOT good. This can be a killer for Bitcoins.


@Clipse - thats not response on any of the problems i have put in first post. Say why it isn't ponzi scheme and here will be no deflation.

@bitcool - every country as an ponzi scheme? Taxes are shit, but tell me who is paying for school of your kids or police? I KNOW they are way too high - i see bitcoin here only as a way to see the money flooding government accounts - and that's excellent. It's just the way to lower them or pay by self  - and that's also excellent , however it can be done also with currenty money unless you are living in country that's not democratic one.
Since you we're born - you had no choice which money you want to use in your country, but your work = money, isn't it ? How does it work in Bitcoin??

[rezin777]

I know a lot of early adopters will even kill if there is need just to get more people in the system and get price higher. Not that kind of things world have already seen.
Let them be rich, but not 10% of the system money and NOT for nothing.

I like how BitterTea answered the early adopter argument.

As far as early adopters unfairly benefiting, think about it this way...

Back when bitcoins had never traded above $0.06/BTC, what would you have said if someone suggested that you invest a couple thousand dollars into this currency, or infrastructure to support this currency? Most likely you would have called them insane. Today, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea now that we have a history of an uptrend.

Early adopters took large risks, and if bitcoin succeeds in becoming a widely adopted currency, will reap large rewards. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Would you have though it was such a good idea then? Perhaps. Would you have invested in it? Maybe. The thing is, information is valuable (extremely valuable), and people with the proper information early on will reap the rewards.

Am I jealous that they learned about Bitcoin before me? Yes, but I'm not complaining that a voluntary currency is a Ponzi scheme like some people. That's just silly.

[goatpig]

This is a beautiful idea. Now go start your custom block chain. I won't join, just so you know.

[kstepyra]

@rezin777 consider you working for their just 1 btc - building house for it in 2050, then we will talk Good that you joined network after 2 years of existence, but think what will happen if 'internet' will tell you about bitcoins in 2049?

@goatpig - another senseless post i like current idea too, just post something more informative, constructive about 2 problems(why they are not problems here?) i posted or quit this topic  : - )
I had to write that:  otherwise i will start to think that this network is currently build only by speculators and nerds that like to be better than others by any way and also like to piss of other net surfers for fun.

[rezin777]

@rezin777 consider you working for their just 1 btc - building house for it in 2050, then we will talk Good that you joined network after 2 years of existence, but think what will happen if 'internet' will tell you about bitcoins in 2049?

@goatpig - another senseless post i like current idea too, just post something more informative, constructive about 2 problems(why they are not problems here?) i posted or quit this topic  : - )

Like I said, information is very valuable. Unfortunately for us, we don't live in a world where everyone has all the information about all things at all times. This is a silly argument. If everyone is getting an influenza vaccine, and I die of influenza because I live in the woods and never heard about an influenza vaccine, does that mean that influenza vaccines are unfair? No, it doesn't.

You can choose to use the tool or not, crying that the people who found the tool first have an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Suggesting a voluntary currency is a Ponzi scheme is just as ridiculous.

[weavejester]

1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme.

You don't appear to know what a Ponzi scheme is, and you don't seem to have a good understanding of how Bitcoin works.

A Ponzi scheme involves lying about how much capital there is. You might invest $1 million, and then I might lie and tell you that I've managed to double your investment, when in reality I've done nothing. It's the act of deliberately misrepresenting the amount of capital available that makes it fraud.

Bitcoins cannot be a Ponzi scheme in themselves, because there's no one person who decides their worth. Bitcoins are, at worst, merely a risky investment.

Secondly, you seem to assume that everyone will buy up bitcoins and hoard them, but the value of bitcoins derives from their ability to transfer wealth without the need for an intermediate financial institution. If no-one's using bitcoins, then they have no worth beyond speculation, and you can't grow an economy from scratch to $10 billion on speculation alone.

If bitcoins ever get to $10,000 / 1 BTC, then it will be because people are regularly using them to transfer money. It's the infrastructure and social following that would give bitcoins their value; we won't ever get into a situation where billions of dollars are invested in a currency no-one uses.

Finally, you seem to be upset that early adopters stand to gain large amounts of money "for nothing" if bitcoin succeeds. You don't seem to appreciate that anyone investing in bitcoins at this point is taking a risk. If you invest $1000 in bitcoins, then there's a strong possibility you'll lose your investment if the currency fails. The principle of high-risk/high-reward is nothing unusual.

[goatpig]

@goatpig - another senseless post i like current idea too, just post something more informative, constructive about 2 problems(why they are not problems here?) i posted or quit this topic  : - )

No I mean it, if you think your idea is worth it, go ahead and start your own block chain. The changes you are talking about are easy to implement, and the source is available to all. Then we shall all wait and see if you can get it running with premises such as:

1) The promotion of inflation under the govern of your gut feelings, since there is no tangible way to discern between coins held on for long periods of time and lost private keys. GG decentralization.

2) Early adopters should be slapped in the face and have their wealth seized for taking the risk to invest and bootstrap the currency.

3) Low to inexistent security, for miners shouldn't be rewarded so, since their work amounts to "nothing". It's also nice to run under a project lead who "really belive in the IDEA of free currency" but can't wrap his mind around its most prominent technological feature...

4) Transaction fees modeled solely on volume, so that people can actually spam the network by throwing satoshis at each other.

5) To pretend to support a free currency all the while looking to change it in order to have countries endorse it. Gotta know what you want son.

One nice bag of nonsense. Let's call it BackwardsCoin, shan't we?

[BrightAnarchist]

What do you think about people who invest in successful companies?

Resource allocation matters.  

+1

Bitcoin is a STARTUP currency. Without speculation, it would probably be impossible to bootstrap the currency, because new economies take a long time to develop. Early adopters have to be rewarded. What other way would possibly work?

[kstepyra]

@weavejester but simple thing is that the first people that bought bitcoins will have earnings just for being first adopters of this currency... Its value grow because of deflation-way it's built. Maybe it's called different than "ponzi scheme" maybe i am wrong here, but you get my point. Maybe money they get isn't that big i said. If they will have let's say 1% of the network spreaded to 100 people - then it's ok, but simple guy having 2% of worlds money ? (400k coins or even more) It's 100 000 000 people working for him for around a month or even more if people don't use all money they have all the time. Isn't that still a lot?


@goatpig:

1) promotion here is good as i said. I said that  i wont start my network, but if it will need to happen then it will be yr. 2020 i.e. when everyone know WHAT bitcoin is and then set exact START date so noone will double transactions or so.

2) @up + sorry but investing pizza for 10k btc's isn't an investment. It's way under price. Dunno why people sold their btc's even if there was not really a lot of adopters? It was sure this idea will survive as it's new and DIFFERENT than any other ideas like Klamm lose or other stuff that's centralized. I always put money in such things but it was just spam of centralized shit so it was not worth of that

3) i dont understand completly what you said but if you mentioned not earning miners then - they will earn by fees spent in network, and also by 1% of money growth every year ( i am talking here for day in years 2100+ because currently system will work for that year or even earlier with decent payout for miners just for 'mining' blocks)

4) Yes i am mistaken here - it's just an idea, it could be methmatically changed for example to have lowest minimum that is around $0.001 valued in BTC's ofc - for lowest transactions with low priority.

5) sorry, even translating this in google don't help me to understand what you mean.

[weavejester]

@weavejester but simple thing is that the first people that bought bitcoins will have earnings just for being first adopters of this currency...

Yes... so what? If I invested $1500 in Google stock in 1999, I'd have over $1 million by 2004. How is bitcoin any different?

I don't think you quite appreciate the fact that, at the moment, investing in bitcoins is a risk. There's no guarantee that the price of bitcoins will continue to rise, just as there was no guarantee that Google would become as successful as it is today.

Early adopters get large returns because they shoulder large risks. Anyone investing in Bitcoin should be fully prepared to lose whatever money they put in.