Transaction houses collect all the money eventually, and other Observations

[jubalix]

Theory of conservation of bitcoins, pump up to go.


Suppose that say 1 bitcoin can goes through 1000 transfers, at 0.001 per transfer the whole value of that coin will be taken by the miner/processor.

The only way for the bitcoin to be returned to circulation is if something of value can be offered to the miner/processor, eg a service, goods or cash. This will be the same for any crypto operation, though some like litecoin may be easier to process. Thus more value by goods/services or "cash" must be pumped into bitcoin if it is to continue back into circulation.

Thus bitcoin can only work if more an more value is put in.


Observation 2

a failing of bit coin/and perhaps other crypto coins may be if the processing cannot be done by the average computer, then it leads to a natural centralization of those who invest in/afford or have access to by stint of luck/happenstance + skill (eg asic miner just had some contacts with manufacture).

TL;DR the blockchain and payment processing must be able to be processed by the average or very slightly above average computer, in this scheme centralization would be avoided, and the most actors would/could engage an the largest P2P would emerge, further the most people would be puling out the same value of a bit coin to themselves so no skewing of that value to any person, so it equals out.

This is where a fork will occur and be successful for larger uptake, when I can really run my own bank from my own laptop, and meet the cost of doing the transaction for same cost of the webrowser eg the power an flat connection fee to internet.

why should I be charged any more for just sending a protocol?

[1713553450]

1713553450

[1713553450]

1713553450

[MoonShadow]

Good God, another one.

[jubalix]

Good God, another one.

Perhaps you could make a sticky for this topic if it comes up a lot and there is a flaw in the reasoning

its not much help to the community [growth] to say "Good God, another one".

I am more than happy to be proven wrong

[MoonShadow]

Good God, another one.

Perhaps you could make a sticky for this topic if it comes up a lot and there is a flaw in the reasoning

its not much help to the community [growth] to say "Good God, another one".

I am more than happy to be proven wrong

No to the sticky.  Read the forum, try to understand the topic.  Use the search function.

If you fail, then ask questions.

[jubalix]

Miners provide a valuable service, they are paid for providing that service. Where is the problem?

How do you intend to prevent specialized hardware from being created for any successful crypto-coin that uses proof of work to secure the network? If you get rid of proof of work, how do you intend to secure the network?

This has been discussed time and time again, and I've yet to see a better solution than Bitcoin.

It will be from better code/implementation, eg like a truecrypt that rus better and a block chain that only needs to be so big, ie once money has past through a wallet no record needs be kept that is was there, beyond say 10 steps or n steps that keep in line with processing power to prevent hacking

Miners do  deserve to be paid, but I should also be able to be a miner...eg the advantage to buying a big rig would max out more like with being able to run crysis at highest resolution type of program. the stability will be when you have the largest number of users givng up pc cycles....this will always out do specialized rigs here and there that can be shut down

[jubalix]

Good God, another one.

Perhaps you could make a sticky for this topic if it comes up a lot and there is a flaw in the reasoning

its not much help to the community [growth] to say "Good God, another one".

I am more than happy to be proven wrong

No to the sticky.  Read the forum, try to understand the topic.  Use the search function.

If you fail, then ask questions.

Yeah, no if it garnered you first response means needs a sticky, or your first response was an over reaction

[jubalix]

Miners provide a valuable service, they are paid for providing that service. Where is the problem?

How do you intend to prevent specialized hardware from being created for any successful crypto-coin that uses proof of work to secure the network? If you get rid of proof of work, how do you intend to secure the network?

This has been discussed time and time again, and I've yet to see a better solution than Bitcoin.

It will be from better code/implementation, eg like a truecrypt that rus better and a block chain that only needs to be so big, ie once money has past through a wallet no record needs be kept that is was there, beyond say 10 steps or n steps that keep in line with processing power to prevent hacking

Miners do  deserve to be paid, but I should also be able to be a miner...eg the advantage to buying a big rig would max out more like with being able to run crysis at highest resolution type of program. the stability will be when you have the largest number of users givng up pc cycles....this will always out do specialized rigs here and there that can be shut down

If there is no permanent record, how do you prevent counterfeit coins? This is the purpose of the block-chain. Users don't need the full chain, only miners.

Specialized rigs are so efficient everyone else will be wasting money. It doesn't much matter what you want. What matters is reality. There is a reason CPU mining Bitcoin is pointless today.

I don't really understand what you are saying. Your thoughts aren't coherent. I think you need to do some more reading and present well thought out arguments if you want a serious discussion.

A person does not understand argument = your not coherent.....I guess that's what most people would say about bit coin before they understood it...

Ok let me put it this way....once I have received a bit-coin from a valid owner, who has been confirmed by x prior transactions, where x is a significant safety margin to stop any realistic hack attempt, you do not need to go further back. You are just introducing pointless security because it becomes a question of 10E1000x the time of the universe to hack or 10E10000x of the time in the universe to have, it does not matter

what is happening as a result of the code in bit coin is nodes are diminishing miners are centralizing, this makes the currency less distributed and thus vulnerable....eg shut down Mt,gox and 5 other large mining pools = the end, becuase no one has the processing power to handle the HASH rate needed

If the code is designed to run on all general pc just as well, then you will have the very high end versus a million low end computers much better than just some special fab shopped "asics and friends", who if they get shut down, again no one will have the power to process anything.

litecoin I think addresses much this problem BUT I am not sure about this , satoshi killed himself by the type of algorithm used ensuring that node would centralize to the point of locking out the masses, look at folding at home where all those PlayStations actually contribute quite a bit because there are just so many. It apears the bit coin market is rapidly centralizing and thus vunerable to gov intervention.

The panadoras box of crypto currency is open, but bitcoin 1.0 will likely not be the one to do it in the long run....unless some serious fprk/code change happens to wrest hashing back to the distributed network

[lassdas]

Satoshi knew pretty well what he was doing, mining was never meant to be for the masses forever.

You want to be able to become a miner? Guess what, you ARE able to become a miner, like everyone else.
Running on the average or very slightly above average computer doesn't change your profitability, people that can afford more of those computers, or just faster CPUs would still gain more than you, in the same way they gain more from a couple of 60GH/s or TH/s ASICs when you yourself can only afford a 4.5GH/s Jalapeno.

The only difference would be security-wise, your CPU-coin would be vulnerable for BotNet attacks (..litecoin .. addresses much this problem..), while the ASIC-coin is not.

Ok let me put it this way....once I have received a bit-coin from a valid owner, who has been confirmed by x prior transactions, where x is a significant safety margin to stop any realistic hack attempt, you do not need to go further back. You are just introducing pointless security

No need to go further back? Pointless security?
Seems you haven't understood,
when you received a bitcoin from a valid owner it is recorded exactly once and gets stored in a single block,
there's no more work needed or done for your receiving transaction, it's stored once and forever.
I don't see how you gonna change that.

[jubalix]

Satoshi knew pretty well what he was doing, mining was never meant to be for the masses forever.

You want to be able to become a miner? Guess what, you ARE able to become a miner, like everyone else.
Running on the average or very slightly above average computer doesn't change your profitability, people that can afford more of those computers, or just faster CPUs would still gain more than you, in the same way they gain more from a couple of 60GH/s or TH/s ASICs when you yourself can only afford a 4.5GH/s Jalapeno.

The only difference would be security-wise, your CPU-coin would be vulnerable for BotNet attacks (..litecoin .. addresses much this problem..), while the ASIC-coin is not.

Ok let me put it this way....once I have received a bit-coin from a valid owner, who has been confirmed by x prior transactions, where x is a significant safety margin to stop any realistic hack attempt, you do not need to go further back. You are just introducing pointless security

No need to go further back? Pointless security?
Seems you haven't understood,
when you received a bitcoin from a valid owner it is recorded exactly once and gets stored in a single block,
there's no more work needed or done for your receiving transaction, it's stored once and forever.
I don't see how you gonna change that.

sigh

no a good crypto $ is  distributed one...the current algorithm is agiasnt that
you need to be able to pay/process for your own transaction costs with your own jalopy rig

eg we did not get water delivered by truck everywhere.....we put pipes in

sign nxnxnxnxnxn...... = n^80, I do not need n^100

formula woud be something like n^2A*80, x A is tied to mores law

[lassdas]

As I said, you still haven't understood, you don't sign nxnxnxnxnxn..., you only sign n and that's it.

However, create your own good crypto $ and do whatever you like with it, good luck.

[BitcoinAshley]

Lol. 15 years ago peeps would be saying the same thing about GPUs as they are now about ASICs. "Lol they're too expensive, normal folks with normal computers won't be able to compete, mining will become totally centralized."

Now everybody's mining with GPUs that have more processing power than a CPU of several years before, and they're saying "Lol ASICs are for the 1%ers us 99%ers with our weak little GPUs will never compete, it will just become a centralized operation." In 2 years some dude will invent a 3d printer for microchips and 5 years after that you'll be able to get a gajillion teraflops worth of used ASICs on eBay for $80.

Sure, we're kind of operating under the assumption that technology will continue to improve and get cheaper. Even if we just STOP at the current ASIC model and don't improve design any further, price inefficiencies will still be uncovered and prices will go down, and even if that doesn't happen, I still don't see a situation where one guy with 500000 ASICs controls Bitcoin. Did we mention that some very nice theories have been proposed which allow one to run a lite node yet still give 0 trust and retain decentralization? Sorry, I forgot that people don't actually read proposals for new developments, they just bitch and moan about how the current problem they've hypothesized is inevitable and could never ever be solved. It doesn't have to be a situation where there are a centralized cabal of people who can afford full nodes, and everyone else must run lite nodes and trust the full nodes. But feel free to ignore all the alternative solutions and continue bitching and moaning as if that's the only option.

And even if that (miner over-centralization to the point of manipulation) does happen, everyone will just sell their coins and move onto some other coin like NVC (lol jk jk) well some other coin that happens to have dealt with that issue.

So, no matter what happens, everything's chill. Don't worry.