Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 12:35:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The deflationary problem  (Read 30787 times)
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:02:14 AM
 #21

Where do these lunatics come from?
Are you really that fucking stupid?  Seriously?  You don't see the problem?  If you're that stupid i feel sorry for you.  Is it an ego thing?  I hope so.
1481027746
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481027746

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481027746
Reply with quote  #2

1481027746
Report to moderator
1481027746
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481027746

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481027746
Reply with quote  #2

1481027746
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481027746
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481027746

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481027746
Reply with quote  #2

1481027746
Report to moderator
1481027746
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481027746

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481027746
Reply with quote  #2

1481027746
Report to moderator
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:04:25 AM
 #22

m8, the reward was effectively reduced almost in half a week ago (again)... so what?

The reward wasn't reduced.

The hash went up, security of the network went up, price went up.  Effective reward remained the same or increased.

If hash ever falls, the network becomes prone to attack.  A strong network is one with growing hash to keep ahead of potential attackers.

Removing block generation reward may reduce the number of miners.  If that happens, bitcoins will lose value.  Not gain.

Coma
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:05:00 AM
 #23

Where do these lunatics come from?
Are you really that fucking stupid?  Seriously?  You don't see the problem?  If you're that stupid i feel sorry for you.  Is it an ego thing?  I hope so.

You started your topic stating:
Quote
In 2040 new block generation will stop

Which is plain wrong. If you think you have a valid point and would like to be trated seriously I'd suggest you correct that, and double-check the rest of your original post for errors.

And try to have some fun too.
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:05:43 AM
 #24

da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:07:27 AM
 #25

There's a simple fix to this solution.  Don't decrease intensives for people to mine.  Once you do you compromise the network.

I don't know why you people are so hostile to this.  It should be very easy to understand.

Other than you being retarded and not being able to use the 'forum search' function... (hint: it comes under the name 'search')

You make the assumption that because the hash-rate MAY be slower... the network differently is less secure.

What you fail to take into account is that the 'security environment' e.g. the total ammount of capital needed to 'attack' the network might make an attack prohibitively expensive...  even if the 'normal' hash rate is extremely low.

For example the hash rate might normally be 1/1000 the rate it is now.... (maybe)... but there is 1 000 000x the current hash rate available on demand if an attack is detected...

Therefore an adversary MUST gather 1 000 000x the current hash-rate to attack the network... even tho the normal hash-rate is 1 000 000 000 times lower.  (and the network is still secure).

One off NP-Hard.
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:07:30 AM
 #26

yep it will require not world's top 10000000 most powerfull computers to attack some bitcoin transactions but world's top 999900 most powerful computers. Yapity yap, that must be a disaster....



-
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:09:24 AM
 #27

Where do these lunatics come from?
Are you really that fucking stupid?  Seriously?  You don't see the problem?  If you're that stupid i feel sorry for you.  Is it an ego thing?  I hope so.

You started your topic stating:
Quote
In 2040 new block generation will stop

Which is plain wrong. If you think you have a valid point and would like to be trated seriously I'd suggest you correct that, and double-check the rest of your original post for errors.

And try to have some fun too.

Listen, this is a serious problem.

People think it's beneficial to stop the reward for generating new blocks.  They're wrong.  They're also idiots.  Maybe they're misinformed, but it's not a good position.

NO ONE should believe this.  It's stupid.  I don't know how people came to the conclusion.

Hash secures the network and miners don't make as much money, they'll stop mining.  Once hash goes down, value of bitcoins goes down.  Bitcoins are only worth the hash of the network.  Not their supply.  It's irrelevant.  You can fix supply, but if the network is insecure, they're not worth anything.

INFLATION IS GOOD for bitcoin.  It supports the hashing network.
da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:10:22 AM
 #28

INFLATION IS GOOD for bitcoin.  It supports the hashing network.

You mum is GOOD for bitcoin... providing she doesn't charge to high.

One off NP-Hard.
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:11:41 AM
 #29

This is not acceptable language.  This is your final warning.  Check yourself or I will.

-creighto
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:11:46 AM
 #30


Listen, this is a serious problem.

People think it's beneficial to stop the reward for generating new blocks.  They're wrong.  They're also idiots.  Maybe they're misinformed, but it's not a good position.

NO ONE should believe this.  It's stupid.  I don't know how people came to the conclusion.


You need to check your premises. 

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:12:31 AM
 #31

yep it will require not world's top 10000000 most powerfull computers to attack some bitcoin transactions but world's top 999900 most powerful computers. Yapity yap, that must be a disaster....



Vladimir i'm discussing the future.

Right now the ecosystem is healthy.  An unhealthy one would be where reward stops for block generation.
Sweft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:13:05 AM
 #32


Listen, this is a serious problem.

People think it's beneficial to stop the reward for generating new blocks.  They're wrong.  They're also idiots.  Maybe they're misinformed, but it's not a good position.

NO ONE should believe this.  It's stupid.  I don't know how people came to the conclusion.


You need to check your premises. 
I have to go too.  Later, no time for this.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:14:23 AM
 #33

Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:16:18 AM
 #34

I am discussing the future too.. and I gave you best guess estimation of effect of the block reward being reduced from 0.1 to 0 BTC.

Suggestion: check how block reward is reduced so that it asymptotically approach 0 over time. Than maybe post something along the lines of  "Before thinking that I am smarter than 10 000 smartest people on the planet I will do more research next time".



-
k
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 452


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:17:17 AM
 #35

also on the point of tx fees. if the nethash decreases when the block reward is reduced that implies that it will take longer then the intended average of 10 minutes between blocks being discovered. transactions will take longer, and there will be a build up of unconfirmed transactions. people who desire a speedy processing of their transactions will be incentivised to pay a tx fee which will help make up for the reduction in the block reward.

this has been discussed before. there was a good thread on why it may have been better to have a continually decreasing block reward rather than a halving every 210000 blocks.
nazgulnarsil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:18:04 AM
 #36

This is not acceptable language.  This is your final warning.  Check yourself or I will.

-creighto

go [censored] yourself.

There, I fixed it.

-creighto
da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:26:15 AM
 #37

nazgulnarsil and Sweft,  you create to-many lulz Smiley

lulzzz of making yourselves look like complete retards on the internet.

Edit:  tl;dr
nazgulnarsil, Sweft -1 reputation

One off NP-Hard.
grdryn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:27:27 AM
 #38

This entire thread is completely irrelevant. Harold Camping says the world is going to end in october.
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:28:28 AM
 #39

This entire thread is completely irrelevant. Harold Camping says the world is going to end in october.

Not again
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:29:19 AM
 #40

nazgulnarsil and Sweft,  you create to-many lulz Smiley

lulzzz of making yourselves look like complete retards on the internet.

nazgulnarsil was just trolling me.  Sweft was getting upset and using strings of letters in conjunction that some would find offensive, although the majority here would likely have just found his attitude hilarious.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!