Introducing Treazant - Bitcoin Without Reward Halving

[killerstorm]

It will die like tenebrix and fairbrix, there's a reason why litecoin was the scrypt chain that won.

Well, currently get-rich-quick is the strongest motivation.

But perhaps a bit later people will care more about other features.

Obviously it takes more than releasing another shitbrix currency, there needs to be a real innovation.

Also, devcoin is more-or-less alive even though it uses constant generation.

[MoonShadow]

The inflation actually tends to zero, and in concept, I like that, which is why I had once proposed it.  That coin could be created today, and it may very well be a "better" coin.  But it won't get popular, and won't get adopted.

What I had underestimated at the time I first proposed it was that the simple notion of "There Will Never Be More Than 21,000,000 Bitcoins" is such an important part of the appeal.  It is far more attractive than "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much".

Yes, it's much more attractive to Austrian/libertarian types who cannot do the math.

It's also much more attractive to the Austrian/libertarian types who can do the math, which is most of us.  As others have mentioned, you're free to fork the code and do your best with it; and no one will care if you take some actions to prevent your alternate currency from interfering with the Bitcoin network, and you call it something different.  Yet, this has already been tried many times, and every time has failed.  That's not because everyone but you is short sighted, either.

[markm]

Both GRouPcoin and DeVCoin keep generating coins forever, and that makes people think of them when looking for something to borrow-to-spend when they don't want to spend their collateral (their collateral being, ideally, coins/stuff that tends to appreciate in value).

The "only so many units ever" feature is indeed very powerful though, which is why more and more community-currency startups have been deciding ahead of time exactly how many units of their community's currency there will ever be. There are people out there that like deflating currencies, so I guess communities are maybe looking to appeal to such people by setting up their currency in a way they hope will help make it a deflating currency. Maybe they just like the idea of being one of the currencies people use as collateral/reserves more than being one of the currencies people borrow-to-spend.

-MarkM-

[killerstorm]

It's also much more attractive to the Austrian/libertarian types who can do the math, which is most of us.

My observations say otherwise.

As others have mentioned, you're free to fork the code and do your best with it; and no one will care if you take some actions to prevent your alternate currency from interfering with the Bitcoin network, and you call it something different.  Yet, this has already been tried many times, and every time has failed.  That's not because everyone but you is short sighted, either.

Time haven't come yet, my friend. Also it needs features which Bitcoin doesn't have, not just another generation parameters.

Also Devcoin is more-or-less alive, so it can work, apparently.

[MoonShadow]

So I believe other currencies do have a chance. Bitcoin is great for long-term store of value, but people might choose something else for day-to-day transactions.

Really, why do you presume this?  What advantage would your unlimited version of Bitcoin improve upon the usability of day-to-day transactions over Bitcoin itself?  And what would prevent Bitcoin from incorporating that improvement?  The storage of value factor is an important feature for an exchange system, without it Bitcoin would just be another dollar substitute.

[killerstorm]

So I believe other currencies do have a chance. Bitcoin is great for long-term store of value, but people might choose something else for day-to-day transactions.

Really, why do you presume this?  What advantage would your unlimited version of Bitcoin improve upon the usability of day-to-day transactions over Bitcoin itself?

I already mentioned all the desired features.

And what would prevent Bitcoin from incorporating that improvement?

Largely inertia. People do not want to lose their savings due to new features being implemented.

But also constant generation can subsidize transaction costs.

The storage of value factor is an important feature for an exchange system, without it Bitcoin would just be another dollar substitute.

Sure, but we just need reasonably stable value, not constantly increasing one.

[MoonShadow]

It's also much more attractive to the Austrian/libertarian types who can do the math, which is most of us.

My observations say otherwise.

Such as?

As others have mentioned, you're free to fork the code and do your best with it; and no one will care if you take some actions to prevent your alternate currency from interfering with the Bitcoin network, and you call it something different.  Yet, this has already been tried many times, and every time has failed.  That's not because everyone but you is short sighted, either.

Time haven't come yet, my friend. Also it needs features which Bitcoin doesn't have, not just another generation parameters.

Features that Bitcoin can't replicate?

Also Devcoin is more-or-less alive, so it can work, apparently.

Depends upon your intended meaning of "work".  Yes, Devcoin still functions and they can be aquired; but that is only half the problem.  If there are no vendors willing to accept them, what good does it do?  I was here when the same argument applied to Bitcoin, but at that time there was no crypto-currency market at all.  Bitcoin carved out it's own niche, and it was a big one.  Now bitcoin has the first to market advantage in a market it created.  The only way another currency can overcome that, and the network effect that Bitcoin already has, is to offer a clear and distinct consumer advantage over Bitcoin that cannot be replicated easily by Bitcoin proper, or it needs to find another unfilled niche; such as Namecoin.  Limitless inflation, even that controlled by a predictable pattern, is not clearly in the advantage of consumers; but Bitcoin's deflationary nature (assuming that it works) clearly is.

[MoonShadow]

So I believe other currencies do have a chance. Bitcoin is great for long-term store of value, but people might choose something else for day-to-day transactions.

Really, why do you presume this?  What advantage would your unlimited version of Bitcoin improve upon the usability of day-to-day transactions over Bitcoin itself?

I already mentioned all the desired features.

Are you talking about this?

Constant generation rate means that:


•there is less speculation; get-rich-quick and early-adopter bonus largely do not work in this case
•fees can be close to zero because miners are paid out of generation
•there is no reward-halving shock and uncertainty
•no theoretic woes like accidentally discovered wallet makes you richest person on planet

Because if you are, I wouldn't call those features.  I'd call those unsupported assumptions.

And what would prevent Bitcoin from incorporating that improvement?

Largely inertia. People do not want to lose their savings due to new features being implemented.

Now that is plausible, but I believe that if your innovations have a clear advantage, the Bitcoin developers would make a point of stealing the idea.

But also constant generation can subsidize transaction costs.

Of course, to a point.  But it does that through an inflation tax upon the entire currency base.  Thus it's not usage based, and thus you can't expect that overlay networks would develop to avoid such transactions.  If your idea succeeded, it would bear the brunt of the entire marketplace forever.  That is not expected for Bitcoin.

The storage of value factor is an important feature for an exchange system, without it Bitcoin would just be another dollar substitute.

Sure, but we just need reasonably stable value, not constantly increasing one.

Your idea doesn't offer stability.  The voltility in the exchange rate has much less to do with it's generation rate and much more to do with it's relative demand.  There are also the floating values of the many other national currencies that your currency would have to exchange with.  If you could peg your coin to some baseline, such as a national currency, you would have much less voltility due to the inertia that the backing brought with it, but then you couldn't have a predictable inflation rate.  And I can't even imagine how such a peg could safely work.

[MoonShadow]

Furthermore, Bitcoin's own inflation rate is currently about 12.5% annually and falling very slowly.  In another year the inflation rate will only be down to about 11% annually.  So the argument in favor of a perpetually inflating crypto-currency, even if it has merit, still shouldn't matter at least until Bitcoin's own inflation rate is below the rate that most fiat currencies target, of around 2% annually.  Even at the next halving in four more years we'd still be at about a 4% annual inflation rate.  We won't cross below the 2% mark for at least another seven years, as the inflation rate at the third halving will be about 1.7%.

Bitcoin won't actually be truely deflationary within my expected lifetime.

[ripper234]

So I'd rather bet on it.

So ... are you selling all your Bitcoins for Treazant/Inflatiacoin?

[myself]

I proposed this in the past and there was an overwhelming consensus that there is no demand for it.

I learned that the 21 million limit is a HIGHLY VALUED feature and that Bitcoin without it is far less appealing.  I gave up.  Good luck with this.

this type of chain can be much more value by main stream economists since there are allot to talk that a currency should have fixed supply by law, the 21 million limit is valued by the current users is imposible to know what the other users will value

[cunicula]

The inflation actually tends to zero, and in concept, I like that, which is why I had once proposed it.  That coin could be created today, and it may very well be a "better" coin.  But it won't get popular, and won't get adopted.

What I had underestimated at the time I first proposed it was that the simple notion of "There Will Never Be More Than 21,000,000 Bitcoins" is such an important part of the appeal.  It is far more attractive than "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much".

You have this wrong. What is attractive is the status quo. If we had started with "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much", then everyone would be loyal to that instead.

[cunicula]

Now that is plausible, but I believe that if your innovations have a clear advantage, the Bitcoin developers would make a point of stealing the idea.

No, they would not. Check the hard-fork wishlist. Anything that is too big a change is off the table. Simply because it is too big a change.

In fact, if you propose stuff that is a bit too clever, the devs are happy to use libel to undermine your credibility.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127634.msg1357552#msg1357552

Most people are happy to turn to the devs to think for them.

[uck]

The name of the coin sounds too much like Treason.  I think that could be a problem.

[cunicula]

The name of the coin sounds too much like Treason.  I think that could be a problem.

What name could be better for attracting AnCaps?

[MoonShadow]

Now that is plausible, but I believe that if your innovations have a clear advantage, the Bitcoin developers would make a point of stealing the idea.

No, they would not. Check the hard-fork wishlist. Anything that is too big a change is off the table. Simply because it is too big a change.

In fact, if you propose stuff that is a bit too clever, the devs are happy to use libel to undermine your credibility.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127634.msg1357552#msg1357552

Most people are happy to turn to the devs to think for them.

Dude, that never was a good idea.  Just because you think it was a bit too clever, doesn't make it so.  I said clear advantage, to the consumer.  If it's not a clear advantage to the consumer, they aren't going to prefer it enough to overcome Bitcoin's network effect & first to market advantages; no matter how technically superior that you might believe it is.

[MoonShadow]

The inflation actually tends to zero, and in concept, I like that, which is why I had once proposed it.  That coin could be created today, and it may very well be a "better" coin.  But it won't get popular, and won't get adopted.

What I had underestimated at the time I first proposed it was that the simple notion of "There Will Never Be More Than 21,000,000 Bitcoins" is such an important part of the appeal.  It is far more attractive than "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much".

You have this wrong. What is attractive is the status quo. If we had started with "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much", then everyone would be loyal to that instead.

Maybe, but only because it attracted a completely different type of early adopter,willing to put his own money and work to great risk for an idea that he believed in.  I think that would have been much less likely with "less inflation than most fiat currencies, forever!" than "never more than 21 million!".  But I suppose we will never know, will we?

[MoonShadow]

The name of the coin sounds too much like Treason.  I think that could be a problem.

What name could be better for attracting AnCaps?

I think that there might be something lost in translation here.

[cunicula]

Your views are beside the point. You don't libel someone if you don't think they are a threat to you. It was not me who judged my ideas to be a bit too clever. And it was not you either.

[phelix]

This kind of coin will never make it because it will not be able to achieve a critical mass.

For current bitcoin holders it would be a disadvantage as it would potentially devalue their coins.

From an inflationary point of view the difference to bitcoin is mostly psychological (and in time scale).