Idea for {drawingthesuncoin}

[drawingthesun]

I have two ideas on my mind about possible features of a future Bitcoin type crypto-currency.

Bitcoin 2.0 is stuff we could do now even inside an alternative currency, but requires discussion and a serious launch. Bitcoin 3.0 is a more complex idea I have had that may or may not ever be technically feasible.

Bitcoin 2.0

This idea is not mine and not new. Before laughing this off as a rehash of old ideas just have a think about it.

With the recent rise of inputs.io and inevitible future "off the chain" payment systems transaction fees are going to be less and less central to the network. The solution proposed by many is to have no reducing block reward and make the release of new Bitcoins constant. Many will shout inflation overload! at this idea, but think about it. If Satoshi made Bitcoin release 50 Bitcoins for all time we would always have enough new coin to sustain network security.

As more and more Bitcoins came into existence the effective rate of inflation would reduce for all time. In a hundred years the inflation amount would be 0.001% and Bitcoins would still go up in value because the rate of mining would in relation to the amount in distribution always fall. As more and more Bitcoins get mined the amount being mined relative to the already mined coins will decrease.

Its more natural than the current system we have and allows for a more immortal network. In 100 years it would be far to expensive to move any amount of Bitcoin. Many people here love that idea because their stash of Bitcoins becomes immovable digital gold worth billions. In reality such a cumbersome commodity will be replaced by something more effective. Bitcoins already are gaining value because its better than gold.

Well Bitcoin 2.0 is better than Bitcoin 1 because we can still send microtransactions for a small fee in 50 - 100 years.

Also those mined Bitcoins in 100 years, even though they are the same amount being released as "today" on this hypothetical Bitcoin 2.0 will be worth loads. Bitcoins will still gain value in the constant release and in fact because the system has more incentive to work after 100 years Bitcoin 2.0 Bitcoins will have more value that a stalled Bitcoin 1 network.

I know, I know I can just release a alternative Bitcoin and people can choose my network.... Well there is no point at the moment because we are still mining a lot of Bitcoin. Many people here do not care where Bitcoin is in 100 years and expect it to be dead anyway. But I think discussion about an immortal crypto-currency network is worth our time, even if at this point it's entirely academic.

Bitcoin 3.0

I won't write as much about Bitcoin 3.0 because I actually have no idea how it would work.

Bitcoin 3.0 has a completely different proof of work.

Bitcoin 3.0 is like Tor with cloud storage. So nodes that contribute space and bandwidth are rewarded with coins. Everyone on the network provides a little amount of relay information and the bare minimum pays for their own usage of the system. People that leech and give nothing back (perhaps the smallest of computers) will be forced to pay some Bitcoin to use the system. But the network itself generates Bitcoin to reward nodes. The rate would be less than 1% or something but enough to give incentives so that people contribute infrastructure towards the project.

Nodes can also offer computing power and space too and get rewarded by the users. I'll explain it with a few examples.

James wants to backup his personal data into the Bitcoin network, he puts some Bitcoin into a special address that pays out little amounts to bring online distributed space from around the world. The more he pays the more distributed his data is and the longer it lasts (if his address were to run out of money his data would eventually be removed by the nodes because they are no longer being reimbursed to hold the data)

This address is a special address that is authorised by James to pay a set amount per hour or minute to create a space for his data. The only way to access this address and force out money is to hold his private key.

Laura wants to run a gaming server but has no space in her house, she pays a small amount of Bitcoin into the system to create a virtual server and her friends contribute too when they all play online, the server is removed by the nodes after laura stops paying.

This also allows for websites to be built with their own Bitcoin to pay for their own hosting within the network, effectively creating sites that are immortal and impossible to close.

Ben had sensitive documents about his local government that he wanted to release, he created a website and loaded the documents up. He created a special Bitcoin address that was to pay for the hosting (remember the sites are hosted on the nodes and the entire domain system is internal, if you pay for a domain it would be cryptographically safe) Ben loaded up some Bitcoin and also set the site to request the visitor's pay a micro amount of Bitcoin. He then deleted his key to the domain, site and Bitcoin address and told the local newspaper about the address. The Bitcoin was enough for 10 years of hosting and also the visitor payments were enough to cover each viewing, meaning the site would now last 10 years after the last visitor and would be impossible to ever remove. Even if Ben had regrets, now the keys were gone the site was set in stone.

Sally wanted to upload the latest batman movie but couldn't afford the high Bitcoin fee it would take to load such a huge file over many nodes, and would be intended to be downloaded many times. Instead Sally sets up a new site, "bitcoinPirateBay" the site charges a micro fee to all downloaders and this covers all the space needed from the nodes. The site is huge and because all connections are anonymous and all visitors have to pay it becomes the first file sharing service that is truly outside the law.

George needs to use a supercomputer for some protein folding simulations, his university is offering a grant to pay for computer use but all the local supercomputers are booked for the next 6 months. He instead uses the grant to pay for computing space on the Bitcoin network.

I imagine a future where the whole internet is just this one massive mesh network that is also using its internal currency to offer incentives to people to keep it alive.

The people that built the cables and such like ISP's do today would profit from transaction fees and the bitcoins generated by the network. Every person that made the system faster, safer and better would be rewarded. In this future no government could even shut the system off because people are greedy and peoples greed would mean this network would extend to every square meter of the world.

Also I thought a more advanced feature would be a internal simulator that simulated new code into the network. If the code was found to be a good addition to the network the code would be distributed to all nodes and that developer would be rewarded. But that last bit is more of a AI.



Anyway. Am I mad?

[blueadept]

Many of the things you are speculating about in Bitcoin 3.0 can be done with off-chain transactions using the current Bitcoin code.  I've written a blog post about one possible way of getting there.

[_mr_e]

I love Bitcoin 3 and wow that blog post was intense. Bitcoin isn't going anywhere!!!

[Carlton Banks]

Many people here do not care where Bitcoin is in 100 years and expect it to be dead anyway.

zero evidence for that

[alp]

A+ subject change.

[gmaxwell]

Sorry if it offends, but people labeling their personal wild ass ideas "Bitcoin 2.0" creates confusion.

[r3wt]

Sorry if it offends, but people labeling their personal wild ass ideas "Bitcoin 2.0" creates confusion.

this

[drawingthesun]

Sorry if it offends, but people labeling their personal wild ass ideas "Bitcoin 2.0" creates confusion.

Haha fair enough

[teukon]

Sorry if it offends, but people labeling their personal wild ass ideas "Bitcoin 2.0" creates confusion.

Up to a point.

The first group to do this created plenty of confusion.  If many people start doing this, "Bitcoin 2.0" would likely become as impotent as "Web 2.0".

Additionally, I'd hope the name of the reference client is changed before it reaches version 2.0.  It's hard enough for people to learn about Bitcoin without having to contend with the money, network, and client all sharing the same name.

[kjj]

Sorry if it offends, but people labeling their personal wild ass ideas "Bitcoin 2.0" creates confusion.

Confusion?  Just because we have several Bitcoin 2.0s to consider before we even have a Bitcoin 1.0*?

Really, this particular Bitcoin 2.0 is just inflatacoin.  Changes to the subsidy do not belong here, although they've been discussed and debated to death in several other places, so I'm not sure if there is any appropriate place left on these forums to restate the notion unless one comes up with some novel ideas or arguments.

And Bitcoin 3.0, as described here, has been proposed several times as well.  I couldn't find the specific threads if you paid me, but I know I've read those exact same ideas before.  Probably several times, actually, hard to keep track when all of the details of implementation are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

*  See what I did there?

[drawingthesun]

Really, this particular Bitcoin 2.0 is just inflatacoin.  Changes to the subsidy do not belong here, although they've been discussed and debated to death in several other places, so I'm not sure if there is any appropriate place left on these forums to restate the notion unless one comes up with some novel ideas or arguments.

Well its only inflatacoin for a while, eventually that new supply relative to the amount in the world would be really really small and its likely their would be a equilibrium point where the value of Bitcoin starts to deflate like we have now.

The big difference is inflatacoin can continue past 100 years. You all think Bitcoin can work past 100 years but it won't, with all the offchain payments systems that are coming online transactions fees will not be enough to secure the network. And if they do secure the network it will be because only a large whale can make a transaction.

[Carlton Banks]

Really, this particular Bitcoin 2.0 is just inflatacoin.  Changes to the subsidy do not belong here, although they've been discussed and debated to death in several other places, so I'm not sure if there is any appropriate place left on these forums to restate the notion unless one comes up with some novel ideas or arguments.

Well its only inflatacoin for a while, eventually that new supply relative to the amount in the world would be really really small and its likely their would be a equilibrium point where the value of Bitcoin starts to deflate like we have now.

The big difference is inflatacoin can continue past 100 years. You all think Bitcoin can work past 100 years but it won't, with all the offchain payments systems that are coming online transactions fees will not be enough to secure the network. And if they do secure the network it will be because only a large whale can make a transaction.

We're here because we want "deflatacoin", in your parlance. You said it yourself: create a competing altcoin, competing being the operative word. Trying to encourage dissent from the core model of the most successful crypto-coin appears either ill considered or conceited.

[kjj]

Really, this particular Bitcoin 2.0 is just inflatacoin.  Changes to the subsidy do not belong here, although they've been discussed and debated to death in several other places, so I'm not sure if there is any appropriate place left on these forums to restate the notion unless one comes up with some novel ideas or arguments.

Well its only inflatacoin for a while, eventually that new supply relative to the amount in the world would be really really small and its likely their would be a equilibrium point where the value of Bitcoin starts to deflate like we have now.

The big difference is inflatacoin can continue past 100 years. You all think Bitcoin can work past 100 years but it won't, with all the offchain payments systems that are coming online transactions fees will not be enough to secure the network. And if they do secure the network it will be because only a large whale can make a transaction.

You aren't adding anything to the discussion.  Many have made the same claims you are making, and the matter has been debated endlessly elsewhere.

This is not a technical discussion, so it does not belong here, it belongs in economics.  However, in economics, there are probably dozens threads over the years from people proposing this exact idea.

I'm not trying to be mean.  I'm just letting you know that your ideas are not new, and if you'd like to know what the community thinks of them, you should read the other threads on this subject.

[drawingthesun]

You aren't adding anything to the discussion.  Many have made the same claims you are making, and the matter has been debated endlessly elsewhere.

This is not a technical discussion, so it does not belong here, it belongs in economics.  However, in economics, there are probably dozens threads over the years from people proposing this exact idea.

I'm not trying to be mean.  I'm just letting you know that your ideas are not new, and if you'd like to know what the community thinks of them, you should read the other threads on this subject.

Ok I get that, I will discontinue the discussion here and do some more research perhaps.

However I admitted that Bitcoin 2.0 was a rehash of old ideas, but warrented serious concideration now that services like inputs.io are starting to gain traction. I felt in previous discussions that this issue is hand waved away with "tx fees will be enough" even though no one has even modelled an actual future scenario. Perhaps I should do some more in depth research of my own and model both systems to determine the most secure and usable one. My hunch is that a constant block reward will be better to secure the network in the long term.

I also posted here because I wanted a technical discussion about Bitcoin 3.0 and how perhaps a proof of work that is to secure and maintain a distributed computing/internet/communication/storage/distribution platform based around a currency.

I think that people would take some of these ideas more seriously if they were either implemented in code (Bitcoin 3.0) or modelled against current systems mathematically(Bitcoin 2.0) In the future I will put in more work and attempt either of these things. Without a model or code to backup my hunch I guess I am just another loon on the forums.

Thats for replying though, I appreciate that rather than being ignored.

Cheers

[jl2012]

These are not bitcoin but you can start an alt-coin.

[drawingthesun]

These are not bitcoin but you can start an alt-coin.

Yeah I know. I was in the mood for a discussion with Bitcoiners about possible future systems because I feel that the proof of work and the reducing block reward do not create a viable future for Bitcoin. The alternative coin forum is very much scam-coin central.