SHOCKING: BU chief scientist: "We need Bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero"

[BillyBobZorton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k

So not only BUcoin wants to turn bitcoin into a political machine with a president and a secretary:



And not only they want to give miners full power to change the protocol unilaterally (since they can keep bribing miners into voting whatever they want)

But in order to make "Emergent Consensus" work (which will never work because it's a flawed concept anyway), since this assumes the currency must be inflationary (BUcoin's EC would require permanent inflation in order to have any chance of working. The potential of a block reward is the only economic reason to continue mining when the mempool has just been emptied by a previous miner's large block), they want to raise the limit of bitcoin beyond 21 million to make it inflationary.

WHY ISN'T EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

BUcoin is pure madness. Everyone supporting this is either an idiot or is making money doing so.

[thejaytiesto]

BU has been proven to be technologically nonviable by a lot of people with good creed by now, it is clear that someone is benefiting by pushing this hell into the community, and definitely that isn't us, the users.
BU implies some nasty changes in the protocol, as you mentioned, the total supply cannot be static.
Of course, BU drones will never mention that or bullshit their way around it.

[Chris!]

Thanks for sharing the video. I actually hadn't heard that with all of the recent FUD going around. It seems that it's more complicated than just wanting to increase the number of bitcoins from 21Million but it's definitely something else to think about with this whole debate.

[Itty Bitty]

Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.

[SONG GEET]

No. 1 agenda : We need bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero
This is completely shit and i think they like to turn bitcoin into same money machine like Ethereum with high inflation/Issuance rate and some sort of foundation taking all those free money.

[Kevin77]

Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.

Not seeming a appropriate reason why BCU wants no cap on total supply of bitcoins.
You completely ignored the possibilities of miners to have same level of profits through appreciated prices of bitcoin. I mean by next halving bitcoin will be having price levels around $10k to get same ratio of profits to miners.

I do think we do not need another inflationary coin after dogecoins as they are very much struggling to hold their fame among crypto users. Hopefully BCU may find same place in the case of breaking the 21m cap.

[Carlton Banks]

      ^ >>> BU >>>>>>
      ^
>>>^       Shark


It's over

[Itty Bitty]

No I mean by next halving bitcoin will be having price levels around $10k to get same ratio of profits to miners.

Great. Guarantee this to Chinese miners and they will probably signal Segwit, and we can move on.

[Lauda]

Peter R charlatan seems more likely to be a government shill as we've speculated the first time he showed up on a Bitcoin conference. He looked phony from day.
BTU recap:
1) Emergent consensus -> more power to the miners -> more centralization.
2) President of BTU & BTU federation.
3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.
Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.

[jonald_fyookball]

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.  

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.  

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.  

[Jet Cash]

I vote we change unlimited's initials from BU to FU.

Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling

Do we really want the purchasing power of Bitcoin to decrease.

[Carlton Banks]

3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.
Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.

They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.


I'm seeing both this and the new ECcoin hard-fork as acceptance that they're moving on, they know that the sock puppet army and VPS nodes didn't fool anyone this time either. They'll desperately cling to the falsehoods ("community is and always was in favour of blocksize hard forks" etc) they've tried to argue with, just as they've done with BU this time around


Is no-one wondering when they will stop talking softly and pull out the big stick? I expect that to happen in a way that takes everyone by surprise, prepare yourselves (yes, prepping, lol)

[BillyBobZorton]

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.  

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.  

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.  

Ridiculous denial. This effectively means that the total supply will be no longer 21 million coins, because BUcoin is in a dead end eventually.

Are you myopic enough to not see how a vast amount of BTC investors get on bitcoin precisely because of that certainty of the 21 million coin limit as they run away from inflationary currencies/assets and want digital certainty?

[lurker10]

Inflation rate has always been non-zero.
Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.

[jonald_fyookball]

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.  

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.  

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.  

Ridiculous denial. This effectively means that the total supply will be no longer 21 million coins, because BUcoin is in a dead end eventually.

It doesn't imply that, my friend.  We do not need to perfectly strategize what's going to happen a century from now, to make a sensible
decision today.  I even gave you an option we could do even if we reached that point and no other option could be found...and it does not involve
changing the 21M supply of coins.   I know we all get worked up about Bitcoin (including me) but at least listen to what i'm saying.  We both
ultimately want a successful Bitcoin.

Are you myopic enough to not see how a vast amount of BTC investors get on bitcoin precisely because of that certainty of the 21 million coin limit as they run away from inflationary currencies/assets and want digital certainty?

I'm in total agreement with you.  I think any attempt to change the issuance/supply would have very little economic support.




 

[eddie13]

Peter R charlatan seems more likely to be a government shill as we've speculated the first time he showed up on a Bitcoin conference. He looked phony from day.
BTU recap:
1) Emergent consensus -> more power to the miners -> more centralization.
2) President of BTU & BTU federation.
3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.
Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.

Yeah, that does it for me..
I could never in a million years support that point 3..
No way..

[zyzzbrah]

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.  

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.  

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.  

protocols solidify with time, pretty sure 120 years from now the protocol rules are set in stone otherwise bitcoin would be a failure as a store of wealth

this implies exactly what it implies. anything but certain 21 million limit coin is untolerable.

not to mention bu mechanism profits even more from mining pool centralization

whole thing is trash. and in 120 years bu devs would have killed bitcoin already anyway.

[jonald_fyookball]

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.  

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.  

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.  

protocols solidify with time, pretty sure 120 years from now the protocol rules are set in stone otherwise bitcoin would be a failure as a store of wealth

this implies exactly what it implies. anything but certain 21 million limit coin is untolerable.
 

Agree.   Something else will have to be done in 120 years about the blocksize/fees.

[nelson4lov]

Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.

Miners want to centralize the Bitcoin Network Just because They want more profits. That's incredibly insane. While they're busy signalling their support for BUcoin centralization plan, They forgot the fact that They're not the only important people. If the users and the community stops using bitcoin. Then It'll all be for nothing.


For me, Miners are the real problem here.

[Lauda]

They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.

I'm inclined to say that BitcoinEC is much better, considering that we'd get Segwit sooner. It doesn't help the 'emergent disaster' though.

They'll desperately cling to the falsehoods ("community is and always was in favour of blocksize hard forks" etc) they've tried to argue with, just as they've done with BU this time around

Yes! This is an extremely false statement considering that BTU is only supporter by a minority of users.

Inflation rate has always been non-zero.
Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.

That's not what this is about.

Yeah, that does it for me..
I could never in a million years support that point 3..
No way..

It baffles me how anyone could support them at this point.