Early speculators' reward

[FreeMoney]

It's a 30 minute technical job. It's an impossible economic one.

Users are faced with Bitcoin that has a well protected network with 400000 difficulty and hundreds of merchants and some good exchanges and the can get $100 worth of them for about $100. Now we have new coin with tiny difficulty, no merchants, no exchanges, and there is no benefit because you still only get $100 worth for $100.

Same with new merchants and exchangers, which network will protect their payments, which has customers holding value denominated in it, which has a liquid market. The choice is easy.

It's a miracle and it only partly has to do with the code. A lot of it is culture. You can't store value in code, you can only store it in people's minds.

You allude to the other problem, but I don't think you see it fully. Anyone who does choose Bitcoin2 has to think that other people will be coming along for there to be any point. But a person who thinks that people jump from currency to currency when there is no significant difference between them must realize that people are going to be jumping to Bitcoin3. This means people won't hold much value (or any) in your chain and you won't get miners, merchants, and exchangers.

[John Tobey]

It's a 30 minute technical job. It's an impossible economic one.

Let's just say I advocate spending 30 minutes to test your hypothesis.

Obviously, the similarity to BTC would make porting BTC-related infrastructure fairly easy.  I doubt many serious merchants accept only BTC currently.  They added BTC to their list of supported currencies, so adding BC2 won't be any harder.  It will be much easier.  As soon as a few do it, people will see it and wonder what BC2 is.  They will find a website and learn about the similarities and key difference.  They will add some BC2 to their wallet and devote a portion of their mining power to it or inquire about it to their pool operators.

Creating a BTC-BC2 exchange seems like an afternoon's work, if MtGox doesn't beat me to it (or my lawyer talks me out of it).

Thanks
-John

[FreeMoney]

It's a 30 minute technical job. It's an impossible economic one.

Let's just say I advocate spending 30 minutes to test your hypothesis.

Obviously, the similarity to BTC would make porting BTC-related infrastructure fairly easy.  I doubt many serious merchants accept only BTC currently.  They added BTC to their list of supported currencies, so adding BC2 won't be any harder.  It will be much easier.  As soon as a few do it, people will see it and wonder what BC2 is.  They will find a website and learn about the similarities and key difference.  They will add some BC2 to their wallet and devote a portion of their mining power to it or inquire about it to their pool operators.

Creating a BTC-BC2 exchange seems like an afternoon's work, if MtGox doesn't beat me to it (or my lawyer talks me out of it).

Thanks
-John

Maybe I'm wrong, go for it.

[unk]

it's the current block chain itself that has very little 'moat' or, to say it in a less folksy way, very low barriers to entry. i wish those promoting bitcoins in that chain as speculative investments would have been more honest with speculators about that point.

i think other block chains could very easily catch on. call one 'credits' and draw up a nice graphic of the various advantages it offers to the current block chain, then make it public enough that a few people write blogs about it.

one advantage you get for free is, of course, lower seignoirage (in the form of payments to those of us who already have coins in the chain).

there are many ways to vary the technology slightly to offer other significant advantages. for example, you could (by removing two lines of code) keep the block-generation subsidy at 50 instead of gradually reducing it, thereby eliminating the chance of certain economic problems manifesting themselves in the future (see the various discussions about the projected mining equilibrium after the subsidy vanishes and the problems with most transaction-fee schemes). you'd also eliminate one way that bitcoin is dangerously marketed to the public (e.g., the marketing could be something like 'honesty: there's no get-rich-quick promise built in'), and you'd still solve pretty much all legitimate concerns about the sort of inflation we see with fiat currencies. besides, you'd also get around every (wrong but intuitive) concern about how a currency can't work if deflationary - and who knows, maybe one of the hundred people raising that concern has a point.

and there are other economic advantages available for alternative block chains for those with resources. the most significant would be a regulated, transparent group of trusted and/or competitive currency exchanges. the mining technology could be altered not to give gpus an advantage, thereby allowing people with only cpus to mine for a longer period of time (until custom hardware or an unexpected development changed the status quo).

others are much easier: a moderated forum very different to this one, a better user interface, protections against the denial-of-service attacks that are possible with the current version of the client, and so on.

[kjj]

If someone starts a new block chain, what's going to keep some big miners from switching to it for a few days and taking a couple thousand coins for themselves?

I mean aside from the pointlessness of it all.

[Bimmerhead]

Suppose in 2008, in the middle of the credit crunch and bailout talk, an anonymous crypto expert had publicly offered to cure several of the world's monetary problems with a new currency much like Bitcoin.

Suppose, however, that he/she/they had made this offer contingent on a promise to pay US$10 million in tax money if the plan were to succeed.  Leaving aside the unlikelihood of TPTB allowing such a measure to come to a vote, would you have voted for the tax?  As for me, perhaps yes, $10 million seems about right, given the time and effort needed, plus a risk premium of a few hundred percent.

Now suppose the offer had been for $100 BILLION (10¹¹) rather than $10 million.  I don't know about you, but I would draw the line well below that figure.

This is a perfect example of why central planning by 'experts' doesn't work better than the market.

$100 Billion to fix the meltdown of 2008 would have been a screaming bargain which any number of countries would have been wise to take up.  The U.S. sunk a hundred billion into AIG alone.

And you would have turned down such an offer?  Why?

[amincd]

Suppose in 2008, in the middle of the credit crunch and bailout talk, an anonymous crypto expert had publicly offered to cure several of the world's monetary problems with a new currency much like Bitcoin.

Suppose, however, that he/she/they had made this offer contingent on a promise to pay US$10 million in tax money if the plan were to succeed.  Leaving aside the unlikelihood of TPTB allowing such a measure to come to a vote, would you have voted for the tax?  As for me, perhaps yes, $10 million seems about right, given the time and effort needed, plus a risk premium of a few hundred percent.

Now suppose the offer had been for $100 BILLION (1011) rather than $10 million.  I don't know about you, but I would draw the line well below that figure.

The example is not analogous to rewards earned through voluntary transactions. Taxation involves coercing those who disagree with a particular proposal into accepting it and contributing funds towards the project. In the case of bitcoin, or any other project/venture where participation is non-mandatory, those that invest see a benefit for themselves in doing so.

If during the credit crunch, an insightful fund manager offered investors a way to increase their returns in the midst of the market crashing, and investors moved their money to that fund, he/she would be expected to gain enormously. If the fund manager were able to produce returns of $2 trillion, they would see tens, or even hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. The investors wouldn't be discouraged from investing by the fact that the fund manager is profiting, because that fund offers them the best return on the market.

If bitcoin offers the best return in terms of greater convenience for someone going into cryptographically secured p2p currency, due to having a first mover advantage in creating a network, that is all that matters to someone who wants to use a digital currency.

[John Tobey]

Suppose in 2008, in the middle of the credit crunch and bailout talk, an anonymous crypto expert had publicly offered to cure several of the world's monetary problems with a new currency much like Bitcoin.

Suppose, however, that he/she/they had made this offer contingent on a promise to pay US$10 million in tax money if the plan were to succeed.  Leaving aside the unlikelihood of TPTB allowing such a measure to come to a vote, would you have voted for the tax?  As for me, perhaps yes, $10 million seems about right, given the time and effort needed, plus a risk premium of a few hundred percent.

Now suppose the offer had been for $100 BILLION (10¹¹) rather than $10 million.  I don't know about you, but I would draw the line well below that figure.

This is a perfect example of why central planning by 'experts' doesn't work better than the market.

$100 Billion to fix the meltdown of 2008 would have been a screaming bargain which any number of countries would have been wise to take up.  The U.S. sunk a hundred billion into AIG alone.

Granted.  But putting money into Bitcoin will not recover those dollars.  The interesting question, to me, is how much the market will value BTC versus a hypothetical, similar, fledgling competitor with lower seigniorage (higher minimum difficulty).  I am considering working on changes to the software that would support creating such a competing currency (or more than one).

And you would have turned down such an offer?  Why?

Bearing in mind my caveat about TPTB, in a hypothetical, plutocrat-free world, even $100bn would have been outrageous.  If someone has been flogging me daily, would you berate me for not showing appreciation on the day he merely slaps me?

[John Tobey]

Suppose in 2008, in the middle of the credit crunch and bailout talk, an anonymous crypto expert had publicly offered to cure several of the world's monetary problems with a new currency much like Bitcoin.

Suppose, however, that he/she/they had made this offer contingent on a promise to pay US$10 million in tax money if the plan were to succeed.  Leaving aside the unlikelihood of TPTB allowing such a measure to come to a vote, would you have voted for the tax?  As for me, perhaps yes, $10 million seems about right, given the time and effort needed, plus a risk premium of a few hundred percent.

Now suppose the offer had been for $100 BILLION (1011) rather than $10 million.  I don't know about you, but I would draw the line well below that figure.

The example is not analogous to rewards earned through voluntary transactions. Taxation involves coercing those who disagree with a particular proposal into accepting it and contributing funds towards the project. In the case of bitcoin, or any other project/venture where participation is non-mandatory, those that invest see a benefit for themselves in doing so.

I maintain the analogy is relevant.  In the example, I did not ask whether you would pay the tax but whether you would have voted for it.  We are now voting on how much to reward Bitcoin pioneers by valuing BTC.

Apart from that, I agree with your comment.  If Bitcoin and the 2009 chain "offer the best return" for something, rational people will use it for that thing.  If something else offers better return, we will switch.

[Bimmerhead]

Suppose in 2008, in the middle of the credit crunch and bailout talk, an anonymous crypto expert had publicly offered to cure several of the world's monetary problems with a new currency much like Bitcoin.

Suppose, however, that he/she/they had made this offer contingent on a promise to pay US$10 million in tax money if the plan were to succeed.  Leaving aside the unlikelihood of TPTB allowing such a measure to come to a vote, would you have voted for the tax?  As for me, perhaps yes, $10 million seems about right, given the time and effort needed, plus a risk premium of a few hundred percent.

Now suppose the offer had been for $100 BILLION (1011) rather than $10 million.  I don't know about you, but I would draw the line well below that figure.

The example is not analogous to rewards earned through voluntary transactions. Taxation involves coercing those who disagree with a particular proposal into accepting it and contributing funds towards the project. In the case of bitcoin, or any other project/venture where participation is non-mandatory, those that invest see a benefit for themselves in doing so.

I maintain the analogy is relevant.  In the example, I did not ask whether you would pay the tax but whether you would have voted for it.  We are now voting on how much to reward Bitcoin pioneers by valuing BTC.

Apart from that, I agree with your comment.  If Bitcoin and the 2009 chain "offer the best return" for something, rational people will use it for that thing.  If something else offers better return, we will switch.

Oh, well if your point was to ask if we would have voted for such a fix, I would say I would not have voted for the $100 billion solution nor would I have voted for the $10 million solution.  That is a completely different matter from what I surmised was the point of your question, which seemed to be that the fixer didn't deserve $100 billion simply because it's a really big number.

You analogy really isn't that relevant because we are not voting on how much to reward Bitcoin pioneers by valuing BTC.  By valuing BTC today, we are voting on the expected future value of bitcoin.  I don't think anybody is paying $9 for 1 btc today because they want to reward the pioneers.  Do you?

[John Tobey]

You analogy really isn't that relevant because we are not voting on how much to reward Bitcoin pioneers by valuing BTC.  By valuing BTC today, we are voting on the expected future value of bitcoin.  I don't think anybody is paying $9 for 1 btc today because they want to reward the pioneers.  Do you?

Good distinction.  But by choosing between buying BTC and starting up a competitor, we implicitly set a value on BTC's first mover position, which is the pioneers' reward.

[marcus_of_augustus]

If the "newbitcoin" had true anonymity (blind signing layer) and was supported by easy exchange with some well-known financial outlets in multiple large countries it might have a fighting chance ... otherwise every day is another day behind the exponential growth curve.

[Steve]

These arguments remind me of people that complain about how much money sports stars make.  Nobody is forcing anyone to buy sports tickets and merchandise and that is what is paying those athletes salaries.  Likewise, no one is forcing you or anyone else to use bitcoins.  Ultimately, it comes down to competition.  If you think the early adopters might become too rich, start a new currency that works how you want it to work and convince people of its merits and that they should start using it.  You'll need to do a lot of work to convince people that it's better than anything else out there and that they should put their money into it, but such is the nature of free market competition.

At the end of the day, if bitcoin is successful, then no matter how rich the early adopters become, the value that everyone else has derived from bitcoin will have been greater.  Only if people were forced through the threat of violence to use bitcoins could that not be the case.

[Bimmerhead]

These arguments remind me of people that complain about how much money sports stars make.  Nobody is forcing anyone to buy sports tickets and merchandise and that is what is paying those athletes salaries.  Likewise, no one is forcing you or anyone else to use bitcoins.  Ultimately, it comes down to competition.  If you think the early adopters might become too rich, start a new currency that works how you want it to work and convince people of its merits and that they should start using it.  You'll need to do a lot of work to convince people that it's better than anything else out there and that they should put their money into it, but such is the nature of free market competition.

I agree with you 100% Steve.  The problem is that the people making the argument on the other side often don't believe in free market competition, but they quite often believe in forcible imposition of what they think is a 'better', 'more fair' or 'more just' position which is derived neither from a higher power or some other externality but really from their own mind.  So appealling to the free market is futile because they don't recognize it as having any type of authority.

[Littleshop]

These arguments remind me of people that complain about how much money sports stars make.  Nobody is forcing anyone to buy sports tickets and merchandise and that is what is paying those athletes salaries.  Likewise, no one is forcing you or anyone else to use bitcoins.  Ultimately, it comes down to competition.  If you think the early adopters might become too rich, start a new currency that works how you want it to work and convince people of its merits and that they should start using it.  You'll need to do a lot of work to convince people that it's better than anything else out there and that they should put their money into it, but such is the nature of free market competition.

At the end of the day, if bitcoin is successful, then no matter how rich the early adopters become, the value that everyone else has derived from bitcoin will have been greater.  Only if people were forced through the threat of violence to use bitcoins could that not be the case.

+1

[John Tobey]

These arguments remind me of people that complain about how much money sports stars make.  Nobody is forcing anyone to buy sports tickets and merchandise and that is what is paying those athletes salaries.  Likewise, no one is forcing you or anyone else to use bitcoins.  Ultimately, it comes down to competition.  If you think the early adopters might become too rich, start a new currency that works how you want it to work and convince people of its merits and that they should start using it.  You'll need to do a lot of work to convince people that it's better than anything else out there and that they should put their money into it, but such is the nature of free market competition.

I agree with you 100% Steve.  The problem is that the people making the argument on the other side often don't believe in free market competition, but they quite often believe in forcible imposition of what they think is a 'better', 'more fair' or 'more just' position which is derived neither from a higher power or some other externality but really from their own mind.  So appealling to the free market is futile because they don't recognize it as having any type of authority.

I, too, agree 100% with Steve's post.  (By the way, I stopped following pro sports around 1990.)  If you are referring to me (the OP) as one who prefers "forcible imposition" over free market competition, I suggest you read more carefully.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

If my squawks come across as complaints or whines, go away!  In fact, I am expressing demand for a new product in the hope of gauging such demand among the broader market and finding people capable of assisting in such product's creation.  If you can suggest a better (less intrusive, cheaper, or more effective) way for me to find interested parties, I will gladly listen.

[dayfall]

I say try it.  But, I don't think I will switch.  What would be my incentive?  My incentive for promoting Bitcoin is obvious.  But, if I switch then my money looses value and Satoshi et al doesn't get "unearned" money.  BC2 may also divide the movement such that neither never takes off.

The solution is simple, make it worth my while to invest in your alternative (which will most likely fail) and I'll join.  Others will too.

Now, can we all just switch to Ido and leave Esperanto and it's orthography (ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ ) once and for all!

[JohnDoe]

If my squawks come across as complaints or whines, go away!  In fact, I am expressing demand for a new product in the hope of gauging such demand among the broader market and finding people capable of assisting in such product's creation.  If you can suggest a better (less intrusive, cheaper, or more effective) way for me to find interested parties, I will gladly listen.

You should talk to unk. He proposed a chain with a block reward of 50 coins forever and said he would create it himself if no one else was interested. I think that would still create heavy deflation and wouldn't stop the whining about early adopters so I proposed a chain in which the reward grows with difficulty. I was just mocking unk evidently since that would produce hyperinflation but if you added diminishing returns to my method then I really think you could have a viable chain which solves both "problems" of deflation and late adopter jealousy.

[Bimmerhead]

These arguments remind me of people that complain about how much money sports stars make.  Nobody is forcing anyone to buy sports tickets and merchandise and that is what is paying those athletes salaries.  Likewise, no one is forcing you or anyone else to use bitcoins.  Ultimately, it comes down to competition.  If you think the early adopters might become too rich, start a new currency that works how you want it to work and convince people of its merits and that they should start using it.  You'll need to do a lot of work to convince people that it's better than anything else out there and that they should put their money into it, but such is the nature of free market competition.

I agree with you 100% Steve.  The problem is that the people making the argument on the other side often don't believe in free market competition, but they quite often believe in forcible imposition of what they think is a 'better', 'more fair' or 'more just' position which is derived neither from a higher power or some other externality but really from their own mind.  So appealling to the free market is futile because they don't recognize it as having any type of authority.

I, too, agree 100% with Steve's post.  (By the way, I stopped following pro sports around 1990.)  If you are referring to me (the OP) as one who prefers "forcible imposition" over free market competition, I suggest you read more carefully.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

If my squawks come across as complaints or whines, go away!  In fact, I am expressing demand for a new product in the hope of gauging such demand among the broader market and finding people capable of assisting in such product's creation.  If you can suggest a better (less intrusive, cheaper, or more effective) way for me to find interested parties, I will gladly listen.

I am referring to that type of person who thinks the government should step in and "do something" about "obscene athlete wages".  You sound like you want to start a competitive league with lower ticket prices.  I commend you and wish you well.

I'll probably stick with watching the pros, though.

[John Tobey]

You should talk to unk. He proposed a chain with a block reward of 50 coins forever and said he would create it himself if no one else was interested. I think that would still create heavy deflation and wouldn't stop the whining about early adopters so I proposed a chain in which the reward grows with difficulty. I was just mocking unk evidently since that would produce hyperinflation but if you added diminishing returns to my method then I really think you could have a viable chain which solves both "problems" of deflation and late adopter jealousy.

Thank you, yes, I have read many of unk's posts, and I like him or her.  I favour conservatism when it comes to changing features.  For everyone who supports New Feature X, two may oppose it, and three may not care but would rather stick to what they know.  But I won't be surprised if there are a few compelling changes to be made, possibly even in the area of inflation policy.  In the end, miners and users determine what works, but coordination before a launch seems useful.

p.s., your use of the term jealousy suggests to me that you don't really understand the argument.  It is not jealousy that makes me ride a bike rather than drive.  It is a personal preference and a reasoned judgement of the relative merits of both.  Anyway, jealousy and ambition (or inspiration) could be two facets of a single phenomenon.