The deflationary problem

[spartacusrex]

Most, maybe.  Until they learn that Litecoin permits free transactions.

This doesn't take into account that security is the MOST important part for some of us.. I wouldn't switch because i would want my coins kept in the most secure network. Not the cheapest.

How much?  Can your quantify it, or you just guessing?  Obviously, that was retorical, I know your honest answer.  You must make many assumptions about how much network "health" (a very subjective metric to start with) would be lost, and how mch is enough.  These things are unknowable.  Let the market decide.

True, true.. and yet..

Well, actually as I'm sure you know, in April 2013, 1 billion dollars (in bitcoins) was sent over the network.. At 0.1% that would have paid the miners 1 million dollars just in TXN fees..

Would that make the network MORE or LESS secure ? Would miners be MORE or LESS interested in being part of that network.. ? Surely it will incentivise the miners in the right way ?

OK - I can see we are not going to agree :-) BUT i just want it known, that for many of us, a HIGHER hashrate, better networking, and a more secure network, is really important.. not trying to squeeze out the cheapest transactions possible. A coin that did have a fixed fee, and rewarded it's miners in a MORE predictable way, would be a feature for me.

There is a lot of talk about what should/might/may happen, when the TXN fees ALONE (basically) will need to pay for the network, and I hope that happens, but does a little push in the right direction really hurt SO MUCH..
 
I'm going to call it quits now..
 

[1713861764]

1713861764

[1713861764]

1713861764

[1713861764]

1713861764

[1713861764]

1713861764

[agentbluescreen]

Reserve bankstering works and has always worked just fine, because a Medium of Labour Exchange is actually backed by the labours that it's earning has, or spending will, represent, ALONE!

Fractional Reserve Banking worked to bring about a power shift from feudal monarchs to the merchant class. FRB is in itself dishonest when you think of money as a commodity (say wheat) it is a flawed human construct. FRB also creates money inflation which is a cause for malinvestment in an economy, the net byproduct of inflation is continued economic growth, (the result of the additional Labour needed to offset the increase in the money supply)   which is now unsustainable.

Yes inflation (and deflation) are ALWAYS everybody's and everything's enemy!

Price inflation and deflation is not in itself good or bad, it is natural market feedback, information provided to members of an economy to make optimal use of resources available. It should be respected not feared and manipulated if the goal is to live sustainability and in peace.

Fractional Reserve came about because metalsmiths realized people dumped the useless precious-metal junk off with them because they couldn't be bothered with the loathsome tasks of dragging it around with them, protecting, hiding and defending it.

Pontifex Maximus JULIUS CAESAR in 48 BC took fractional reserve counterfeiting away from the private bankstering class and coined the first ALL PUBLICLY OWNED (and rented-out) "central reserve bank" money-tokens. This invention enabled him to build vast public works projects and obsolete taxation (for Romans in Rome), since the Republic profited sp handsomely from the correct growth of the public's Medium of Labour-Resource Exchange. He was assassinated by the private banksters (over his overwhelming popularity) for this, and his new calendar.

You silly "hard currency" morons totally confuse a "wealth" (too much of some garbage or rarer COMMODITY)  with a "money" (the universal "fractional" token of the PRIME RESOURCE of the values of all labours).

Any mere "commodity", no matter how rare, can and will become easily monopolized by any "economic winner". This is how Joseph enabled Pharaoh to enslave his people (because of their rare, limited and finite "fools-gold" money) during the famine in Egypt. It is exactly what the Rothschilds (and their global bankstering proxies) did ALL OVER AGAIN with the Private Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

Making some stupid rare "commodity" equal to the value of all human labour makes humans a damned "commodity"!

Gold was obsolete in the 1700's. Right now there is less than one ounce of gold per person on earth. This means that (as an average "Producer") all that you could ever do in your entire lifetime could never be worth (paid in-profit, savings or excess) more than a lifetime-maximum of 28 grams of gold. (or you'd have somebody else's, who's entire life's labours would have to be worth less).

The way gold wealth is currently distributed people would have to work weeks for some minute dust-fragment of gold.


Fine art, antiques, collectables and rare gems are "Mediums of Savings" (rare wealths who's values ever increase) generic metals and diamonds are only 2nd or 3rd rate (monopolized) Mediums of Savings, the price/demand for which are solely determined by how much monopolists are willing to pay for "more of their junk".

All other "commodities" are better or worse "Mediums of Investment" depending upon just about everything.

A "money" is (usually) a (national) economies' people's Medium of Labour-Resource Exchange that represents only the "current" sum total values of the fruits of all of their (exportable) PRIME LABOUR RESOURCES. It need not also be something (or anything) else that it is not.

WHAT IT IS IS WHAT IT IS, IT NEED NEVER ALSO BE ANYTHING ELSE (EASILY MONOPOLIZED) THAT IT IS NOT!


This is why an independently owned (by it's bearers and acquirer counter-parties alone)  Bitcoin Credit Swap OTC Derivative  is an ideal form of Labour-Resource Exchange "currency".

The power to print and own a "money" is the power to either free and liberate, or the power to enslave and own, an entire "human resource" of people.  All of these questions have nothing to do with what fiat money simply always must and has to be, they all have EVERYTHING to do with WHO OWNS IT.

[MoonShadow]

Most, maybe.  Until they learn that Litecoin permits free transactions.

This doesn't take into account that security is the MOST important part for some of us.. I wouldn't switch because i would want my coins kept in the most secure network. Not the cheapest.

And yet, as you point out, the important fact is not what is important for some of us, but what most of us are willing to pay for.  What you may want, or I, is irrelevant.

How much?  Can your quantify it, or you just guessing?  Obviously, that was retorical, I know your honest answer.  You must make many assumptions about how much network "health" (a very subjective metric to start with) would be lost, and how mch is enough.  These things are unknowable.  Let the market decide.

True, true.. and yet..

Well, actually as I'm sure you know, in April 2013, 1 billion dollars (in bitcoins) was sent over the network.. At 0.1% that would have paid the miners 1 million dollars just in TXN fees..

Would that make the network MORE or LESS secure ? Would miners be MORE or LESS interested in being part of that network.. ? Surely it will incentivise the miners in the right way ?

OK - I can see we are not going to agree :-) BUT i just want it known, that for many of us, a HIGHER hashrate, better networking, and a more secure network, is really important.. not trying to squeeze out the cheapest transactions possible. A coin that did have a fixed fee, and rewarded it's miners in a MORE predictable way, would be a feature for me.

Go for it.  Make our own alt-coin if you have the skills.  I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it, personally.

There is a lot of talk about what should/might/may happen, when the TXN fees ALONE (basically) will need to pay for the network, and I hope that happens, but does a little push in the right direction really hurt SO MUCH..
 
I'm going to call it quits now..
 

Neither of us will likely  live to see the endgame.  Again, that's not even going to happen for another 115+ years.

[spartacusrex]

HA! I said I'd call it quits and yet here I am..

This really is it though, on this topic.. too much code to write..

Go for it.  Make our own alt-coin if you have the skills.  I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it, personally.

Careful - you get the right shoulder action going, you can throw a coin pretty far..

On a serious note - I don't like alt-coins.. Well not the ones that have been produced so far. They're all just Bitcoin with some parameters changed.. except maybe PPC coin, but I don't like the POS system.. Though I do like seeing how the different strategies play out..

IF I did write a coin, which I have considered, it's going to be COMPLETELY different.. from the ground up. THAT I would like to see. Something truly new and dare I say it, original ?.

BUT [cough].. I'll probably have some kind of low fixed fee built in..   

I hope I can show it to you someday. You never know..

[Impaler]

Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security.  Could it be that BTC 'mining' is embraced not because it's really necessary but because a whole group of people make profits from it.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security.

If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?

[Adrian-x]

EVERYTHING to do with WHO OWNS IT.

Agreed, that's why I see promise in Bitcoin, apart from the initial distribution problem once that has passed, the money will be owned by the labour that saves it (and inflation and deflation will be the measure the value of the labour that produced the work that earned the money that was saved.)

Fractional Reserve Banking is by definition theft, I am grateful for it as it is what broke the Feudal class, who had a monopoly on the land which is the source of prosperity, and enslaved the 99%, FRB gave birth to a new Capital class who now have a monopoly on the prosperity of labour and innovation. The time has come to end the Capital class the owners of money.

The new enlightenment will result when: 1) you own your productivity and 2) the Property rights evolve to mitigate monopoly.
Fixed quantity p2p Cryptocurrency is the first step in achieving 1)

[MoonShadow]

Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security.

If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?

If a trustless, anonymous, authorityless cryptocurrency could be developed that did not require proof-of-work; and be credible, it would overtake Bitcoin in no time. (assuming bitcoiners were unwiling to modify bitcoin's running protocol to match)  This is the primary motivation for alt-coins that attempt to use proof-of-stake and hybrid POW/POS systems to create the timestamping ledger/blockchain.  It's just that they are all so complicated; it's either difficult or impossible to prove that they are successful in this goal, and otherwise do not introduce new attack vectors.  In the several POS alt-coins I've seen, they either break anonimity, authorityless-ness, or provablely introduce new attack vectors. (for example, teh problem with trustless POS is that often the mining with that POS can build trust/stake until they are functionally supernodes, and then turn malicious at that point)

Proof-of-work is (relatively) simple.

[Adrian-x]

Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security.  Could it be that BTC 'mining' is embraced not because it's really necessary but because a whole group of people make profits from it.

I mine to protect my investment in BTC, earning BTC from mining is a bonus, and so it will be with ASICMiner too they Mined to earn BTC, but they will eventually mine to protect the BTC they have saved Mined.   

[marcus_of_augustus]

Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security.

If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?

If a trustless, anonymous, authorityless cryptocurrency could be developed that did not require proof-of-work; and be credible, it would overtake Bitcoin in no time. (assuming bitcoiners were unwiling to modify bitcoin's running protocol to match)  This is the primary motivation for alt-coins that attempt to use proof-of-stake and hybrid POW/POS systems to create the timestamping ledger/blockchain.  It's just that they are all so complicated; it's either difficult or impossible to prove that they are successful in this goal, and otherwise do not introduce new attack vectors.  In the several POS alt-coins I've seen, they either break anonimity, authorityless-ness, or provablely introduce new attack vectors. (for example, teh problem with trustless POS is that often the mining with that POS can build trust/stake until they are functionally supernodes, and then turn malicious at that point)

Proof-of-work is (relatively) simple.

Ah-yup. I think we have at least a 2nd gen and 3rd gen before the whole space of what is possible has been explored and optimised.

[kjj]

Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security.  Could it be that BTC 'mining' is embraced not because it's really necessary but because a whole group of people make profits from it.

How terrible that people should profit from doing something useful.

We need a new coin that automatically allocates profit to those that claim to represent the useless.  That will keep academics and politicians busy so they don't smell their end coming.

[Adrian-x]

How terrible that people should profit from doing something useful.

We need a new coin that automatically allocates profit to those that claim to represent the useless.  That will keep academics and politicians busy so they don't smell their end coming.

I do think that supporting a  full block chain node (with accompanying bandwidth) does add value, it could be possible that a node who maintains the block chain is reworded with proof of stake (mining options) like the current reword, but to mine you need to convert proof of stake into proof of work to earn BTC.

This would allow South and Northern hemispheres to take a break from mining in the summer months without missing out on opportunity, thus maximising the utility of the heat generated by mining by limiting it to winter months. It would make an attack harder too, as an attacker would need to support strengthen the existing network in order to allow it to even attempt a 51% brute force attack.

[firefop]

I do think that supporting a  full block chain node (with accompanying bandwidth) does add value, it could be possible that a node who maintains the block chain is reworded with proof of stake (mining options) like the current reword, but to mine you need to convert proof of stake into proof of work to earn BTC.

This would allow South and Northern hemispheres to take a break from mining in the summer months without missing out on opportunity, thus maximising the utility of the heat generated by mining by limiting it to winter months. It would make an attack harder too, as an attacker would need to support strengthen the existing network in order to allow it to even attempt a 51% brute force attack.

OR somebody could do something like... oh I don't know - buy a bunch of avalon chips - put together a rig that acts as a space heater, and sell that for a profit. How many people buy those "edenpure" space heaters for multiple thousands of dollars...

Why not a bitcoin based product in the same price range - where a consumer can purchase it and then heat his house by mining bitcoin to offset his power bill? What about a bitcoin based hot water heater (just liquid cool your chips and heat exchange into a water tank)?

The point isn't purely 'secure the network' although it is a point. There are also a myriad of ways to profit by building services on the bitcoin network. Device construction is only a part of that pie... services are going to be key in the future as well (or this whole project at some point fails).

[Impaler]

The point is that BTC intertwined transaction security with creating the money supply and then says these things will be divorced from each other at some future data that's so far in the future we will all be dead by then.  Now I'm aware that the double spend issue has not been solved in a robust way by any other system, but the general lack of interest in solving it is I think a reflection of a desire by most of the community here NOT to try to solve it in any other way.  

People really like being well payed bodyguards for a system that could collapse without them, the poorer the systems innate security the more bodyguards needed and the bigger the cut for the bodyguards.  Low and behold the bodyguards aren't interested in anything that would replace them at lower cost.  Should we be the least bit surprised that this bodyguard system isn't being used by real merchants who have the option to use Fiat money instead with it's massively lower costs?  Even if you call the State the bodyguards/enforcers of that money system (fair enough), they charge less then you guys and they have more market share, if you want to win market share lower your price.  But it seems to me people here prefer to get a big slice of a little pie then a small slice of a big pie, the classic error of guilds and unions throughout history.

[Etlase2]

If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?

Of course they can. The problem is figuring out how to moderate it with an efficient decentralized system while also making it sybil-resistant. I claim I have just the thing in my signature.

The point is that BTC intertwined transaction security with creating the money supply and then says these things will be divorced from each other at some future data that's so far in the future we will all be dead by then.  Now I'm aware that the double spend issue has not been solved in a robust way by any other system, but the general lack of interest in solving it is I think a reflection of a desire by most of the community here NOT to try to solve it in any other way. 

People really like being well payed bodyguards for a system that could collapse without them, the poorer the systems innate security the more bodyguards needed and the bigger the cut for the bodyguards.  Low and behold the bodyguards aren't interested in anything that would replace them at lower cost.  Should we be the least bit surprised that this bodyguard system isn't being used by real merchants who have the option to use Fiat money instead with it's massively lower costs?  Even if you call the State the bodyguards/enforcers of that money system (fair enough), they charge less then you guys and they have more market share, if you want to win market share lower your price.  But it seems to me people here prefer to get a big slice of a little pie then a small slice of a big pie, the classic error of guilds and unions throughout history.

Nice post.

[MoonShadow]

If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?

Of course they can.

Not in any way that's provably sound, in the mathmatics proof sense.  Proof-of-work is mathmaticly provable.  This is no small hurdle.

The problem is figuring out how to moderate it with an efficient decentralized system while also making it sybil-resistant. I claim I have just the thing in my signature.

Oh, wow.  Here we go again.  Havn't read your description completely, but I already have a complaint.  Your description is 'fuzzy', as even you mention that your numbers are "debatable".  Worse still, you start by establishing a two-tier class system (like common versus preferred corporate stocks), wherein ownership of the high class assets are what give you special rights to be a 'supernode'.  While this might be 99% attack resistant (I'm not conceding this, just not contesting it yet) what prevents any one person or group from accumulating those Shareholder coins until they can functionally perform a >1% attack?  On the flip side, what incentive would a SH coin holder have for selling one?  How are they created, and how (or by whom) are those recepients chosen?  God this thing is complex, and it's not even close to a complete protocol.  What prevents a SH coin holder from using that power to disrupt the network itself, by voting against consensus?  I contend that some of these features are impossible on a practical level, and some might be impossible on an implementation level.

Good God!  That's an awful way to make an argument, Etlase2.  Haven't you learned anything during your tour here?

[Etlase2]

Not in any way that's provably sound, in the mathmatics proof sense.  Proof-of-work is mathmaticly provable.  This is no small hurdle.

Oh please. Unless you plan on debating the finer points of the cryptographic proof differences between DSAs and hashing algorithms, your argument holds no water. It is defeated very easily because you must concede that a central authority with one key could control a network such as I describe. The point of course is to not give just one key this privilege, but very many.

Your description is 'fuzzy',

I'm aware of that. It's because of an unfounded fear about someone using the idea that I've spent far too much time developing. I wouldn't have a problem with that per se, but it would probably be used to create bitcoin 2.0 rather than cryptocurrency 2.0, and that would be a shame.

as even you mention that your numbers are "debatable".

That is a reference to the constants I use.

what prevents any one person or group from accumulating those Shareholder coins until they can functionally perform a >1% attack?

What is a 1% attack? Refusing to acknowledge a consensus block? Well if no one can hear you scream... Acknowledging a different consensus block? Well hey you've created a fork where you are the only one and the original fork has destroyed your money. Sure, I can just say these things and pretend that's evidence, but understanding proof-of-consensus requires a break from the bitcoin mentality of security. Your attitude speaks volumes about your willingness to think differently, so there is little point in me continuing.

On the flip side, what incentive would a SH coin holder have for selling one?  How are they created, and how (or by whom) are those recepients chosen?

They aren't created or sold, money of the network is used to purchase shares in the network. The recipients aren't "chosen", they make the decision to work for the network. In return, they receive a portion of transaction fees. This stuff is all covered clearly enough in the first few paragraphs.

God this thing is complex, and it's not even close to a complete protocol.

Complex? Yes. Protocol incomplete? No, only the proposal is incomplete for brevity and the aforementioned fear.

What prevents a SH coin holder from using that power to disrupt the network itself, by voting against consensus?

The simple fact that every single other SH that is not colluding with him will agree destroy his share for his unwillingness to agree to consensus. Of course then comes the "well what if EVERYONE is colluding?" and I have to point out the failure of that logic etc.

I contend that some of these features are impossible on a practical level, and some might be impossible on an implementation level.

Well if you contend!

Good God!  That's an awful way to make an argument, Etlase2.  Haven't you learned anything during your tour here?

I'm not here to argue, I know what I propose is possible and it will be made. The more that are made aware of a completely different way to accomplish the task at hand is available, the more quickly it is likely to be realized.


And thanks for the support 100x.

[Adrian-x]

I do think that supporting a  full block chain node (with accompanying bandwidth) does add value, it could be possible that a node who maintains the block chain is reworded with proof of stake (mining options) like the current reword, but to mine you need to convert proof of stake into proof of work to earn BTC.

This would allow South and Northern hemispheres to take a break from mining in the summer months without missing out on opportunity, thus maximising the utility of the heat generated by mining by limiting it to winter months. It would make an attack harder too, as an attacker would need to support strengthen the existing network in order to allow it to even attempt a 51% brute force attack.

OR somebody could do something like... oh I don't know - buy a bunch of avalon chips - put together a rig that acts as a space heater, and sell that for a profit. How many people buy those "edenpure" space heaters for multiple thousands of dollars...

Why not a bitcoin based product in the same price range - where a consumer can purchase it and then heat his house by mining bitcoin to offset his power bill? What about a bitcoin based hot water heater (just liquid cool your chips and heat exchange into a water tank)?

The point isn't purely 'secure the network' although it is a point. There are also a myriad of ways to profit by building services on the bitcoin network. Device construction is only a part of that pie... services are going to be key in the future as well (or this whole project at some point fails).

I can think of lots of scenarios where the heat can be effectively utilised, I think it will be an industry unto itself.

So I think Satoshi was close when he discounted the size of the blockchain looking at the historic rate that Hard drive space is increasing relative to cost. But bandwidth requirements are increasing at a rate higher than the cost of bandwidth is decreasing. The result is maintaining the blockchain will become more and more costly to the point it is an investment that has no return. 

So it makes sense to reword the stewards of the blockchain in a similar way to the miners.

The advantage of making one proof of stake option, is with the space heater idea, it won't be practical to run it in summer, however the cost investment in hardware would result in a lost opportunity in mining. The net result is, human action isn't held in balance with the system and people will waste energy. It is in contrast to the other aspects of the Bitcoin economy.  If you had options to mine you could save them in the summer and use them in the winter, the only risk is the business risk that is similar to the risk Bitcoin has now. (this would be ideal feature now before Bitcoin energy consumption grows exponentially.)   

All in all I keep wondering how much of what makes Bitcoin so cool, was the result of the conceived  design (getting the fundamentals right in the protocol) or getting the protocol aspect resolved and by chance, it being so accurately timed and exsiccated it has become the catalyst for new ideas and features and ways of exchanging and storing economic activity among the benefits possibly eliminating the economic problem of inflation and deflation.

[MoonShadow]

If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?

Of course they can.

Not in any way that's provably sound, in the mathmatics proof sense.  Proof-of-work is mathmaticly provable.  This is no small hurdle.

The problem is figuring out how to moderate it with an efficient decentralized system while also making it sybil-resistant. I claim I have just the thing in my signature.

Oh, wow.  Here we go again.  Havn't read your description completely, but I already have a complaint.  Your description is 'fuzzy', as even you mention that your numbers are "debatable".  Worse still, you start by establishing a two-tier class system (like common versus preferred corporate stocks), wherein ownership of the high class assets are what give you special rights to be a 'supernode'.  While this might be 99% attack resistant (I'm not conceding this, just not contesting it yet) what prevents any one person or group from accumulating those Shareholder coins until they can functionally perform a >1% attack?  On the flip side, what incentive would a SH coin holder have for selling one?  How are they created, and how (or by whom) are those recepients chosen?  God this thing is complex, and it's not even close to a complete protocol.  What prevents a SH coin holder from using that power to disrupt the network itself, by voting against consensus?  I contend that some of these features are impossible on a practical level, and some might be impossible on an implementation level.

Good God!  That's an awful way to make an argument, Etlase2.  Haven't you learned anything during your tour here?

Yeah, what the hell was he thinking trying to actually create something novel (compared all the other shit coming out of the altcoin sub-forum)?
And seriously, starting a discussion without having a perfectly outlined specification? Madness! So glad the bitcoin protocol is perfectly specified.
We all know complex proposals always fail, which is why we have stuck to the horse and buggy for transportation and the good ol' postal service for communication!

Etlase2 and I have a history about this kind of thing.  He proposes BS,and I point out it's flaws.  It drives him nuts.  He's being fuzzy because he is afraid that someone is going to point out flaws.

[firefop]

All in all I keep wondering how much of what makes Bitcoin so cool, was the result of the conceived  design (getting the fundamentals right in the protocol) or getting the protocol aspect resolved and by chance, it being so accurately timed and exsiccated it has become the catalyst for new ideas and features and ways of exchanging and storing economic activity among the benefits possibly eliminating the economic problem of inflation and deflation.

I often wonder about that myself... but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that this sort of thing would happen in any free market. It just happens faster in bitcoin... because it is a free market. Which in turn makes me want to shake statists and banksters.