Devcoin

[EmilianoZ]

It is kind of weird that once we made GRouPcoin and DeVCoin the constant complaints about bitcoin NOT constantly creating coins seems to have died out.

Maybe all the people who claimed that it is economically vital to keep creating coins forever were just bullshitting?

It would be useful to have them around to re-interate all their arguments, explaining that coins such as GRouPcoin and DeVCoin that keep creating coins forever are far superior to the intrinsically flawed "limited number ever" model exemplified by bitcoin...

-MarkM-

I agree Mark that a limited coin is flawed eseocially at 21 million.  I don't disagree with printing more money but it should be less or using demurrage.  Something to keep the billions from growing while the price is imploding.

I agree a lot with what luckybit says but I also think the way bitcoin, once a token, now a coins currency simply because its in demand, devcoin can too follow that route but it would take many adopters.  And if what he says its true and we have hundreds and soon thousands of workers in third world countries then yes, it will destroy the plan cause most 1st world countries will not work for a small share that's only worth maybe $10, while over there that's a good wage but I doubt the content will the same quality there which is why I suggested more like a .25 share for third world countries to keep the businessplan from unraveling.

I also like his idea of devcoins not in use for an X amount of to auto destruct.  That's brilliant as it limits the total numbers and it creates massive money volatility which would then put an upward pressure on the price as people will only hold on so long before selling the coins. Maybe a clause saying once sold the shares clock starts again but up to a limited amount of time to prevent abuse from clever guys with 10 different wallets.

Hello:
Here are my two cents.
I agree with having a debate about having unlimited, infinite or limited amount of coins, by the way none of those terms are equal, or exchangeable.
Personally, I am for a limited amount of coins created/destroyed every so often, lets say a year, of course this strategy is only for mature coins. This way you start the year with some amount, which you know is going to decrease by a percentage, and you have the whole year to create more. You will also have a whole year to decide wether to create less, to restore the amount lost with new coins or to increase it; a debate could be held to decide upon it.
I have to say I disagree with the idea of weighting quality of someones work through the amount asked for it or the region of the world it comes from. I have to remind the difference in quality of life is just evidence of the inequalities of the "global" society, which could and should be solved someway. One option might go through adopting an open currency which is socially maintained.

[1714254546]

1714254546

[1714254546]

1714254546

[1714254546]

1714254546

[ranlo]

I am 100% against the destruction of coins. This creates way too many problems. You should be able to hold some for use whenever you want, without being forced to utilize them. This is part of what creates value.

I think what needs to be done is slow down the creation of new coins. We need some way to determine how many should be made and use that to continue on. Every month or so it should be re-evaluated and altered as necessary. This will help keep the total number of coins in check, without causing problems by taking away what people have already earned. Inflation (or deflation in the form of the currency's value) will handle that all on its own, and is a much more efficient determinant.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Hey, Don!  Finshaggy, I've been on a domain name binge and I just bought one you and I may find helpful.

FREECRYPTOCASH.COM

THE coin version and token version were taken. I'm thinking if we're gonna give away devcoins and maybe later on other coins why not do it on our own site. The masses always flock to free. And maybe we'll get donations by people who want to propagate their coin's awareness and good will.

I don't know what kind of traffic one needs to draw to make a few $K per month but there's no better way than a site that tells you where to go to get free crypto cash and even get it there.

We can also use it as a site directing people on how to better mine and earn devcoins, it tooke a month of research to find this stuff out.

What do you think?


Edit:  I just also added 1stopCryptoShop.com and OneStopCryptoShop.com.  That way we can more than give away free coins but also sell anything from hardware, software, gear and coins themselves. 

[Vlad2Vlad]

I am 100% against the destruction of coins. This creates way too many problems. You should be able to hold some for use whenever you want, without being forced to utilize them. This is part of what creates value.

I think what needs to be done is slow down the creation of new coins. We need some way to determine how many should be made and use that to continue on. Every month or so it should be re-evaluated and altered as necessary. This will help keep the total number of coins in check, without causing problems by taking away what people have already earned. Inflation (or deflation in the form of the currency's value) will handle that all on its own, and is a much more efficient determinant.

Fair enough.

[FinShaggy]

Luckybit,

Can you give me a quick answer to a couple questions for which I cannot find any good answer.  This is relevant to the value and future of tokens such as devcoin which is why I'm asking it here and not in PM.

1) Since you cleared these are tokens which does change a lot with my own personal theories I'm hoping you can add some color to what I've been searching for.

2) What's your take on the incredibly stable bitcoin token, an utterly worthless video game token showing incredible strength and price stability at well above $120.  From an econ point of view it's not possible for this length of time so maybe you can add some new perspective.  I firmly believe the natural forces exacerbated after a few weeks and it is now being propped up, but for what purpose, by artificial means....but who and for what purpose, again?

3)  These tokens are known about by maybe 1% of the population, and I mean, known as in knowledge not some quick thing they heard on channel 12 news.  So it's only a matter of time before awareness explodes and goes logarithmic and depending the number of tokens on the market at the time most if not all coins can stand to gain massive price appreciation, especially one such as devcoin which has a large following.  What's your take on this theory of mine and the possibility of it actually happening in my timeframe of 6-18 months or so?

4) Tokens are different than money but I think from the physics and economics point, such as supply and demand, velocity of money, turn over rate, etc,. these tokens should behave closely to the same model as money since in essence they can be treated as fiat money at some point so then their price can appreciate based on the same theories which govern the current market value of any fiat currency.  What's your take on that and perhaps a timeframe?

Thanks in advance.

regards,

Vlad

I wouldn't say money is completely different than tokens.

Enter token, get service... Tokens are really just local currency. REALLY local.

[EmilianoZ]

Luckybit,

Can you give me a quick answer to a couple questions for which I cannot find any good answer.  This is relevant to the value and future of tokens such as devcoin which is why I'm asking it here and not in PM.

1) Since you cleared these are tokens which does change a lot with my own personal theories I'm hoping you can add some color to what I've been searching for.

2) What's your take on the incredibly stable bitcoin token, an utterly worthless video game token showing incredible strength and price stability at well above $120.  From an econ point of view it's not possible for this length of time so maybe you can add some new perspective.  I firmly believe the natural forces exacerbated after a few weeks and it is now being propped up, but for what purpose, by artificial means....but who and for what purpose, again?

3)  These tokens are known about by maybe 1% of the population, and I mean, known as in knowledge not some quick thing they heard on channel 12 news.  So it's only a matter of time before awareness explodes and goes logarithmic and depending the number of tokens on the market at the time most if not all coins can stand to gain massive price appreciation, especially one such as devcoin which has a large following.  What's your take on this theory of mine and the possibility of it actually happening in my timeframe of 6-18 months or so?

4) Tokens are different than money but I think from the physics and economics point, such as supply and demand, velocity of money, turn over rate, etc,. these tokens should behave closely to the same model as money since in essence they can be treated as fiat money at some point so then their price can appreciate based on the same theories which govern the current market value of any fiat currency.  What's your take on that and perhaps a timeframe?

Thanks in advance.

regards,

Vlad

I wouldn't say money is completely different than tokens.

Enter token, get service... Tokens are really just local currency. REALLY local.

Hi, Actually I would say Vlad and FinShaggyare correct on their statements.

We could have a look on the theory behind token money and money.

at http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_commodity_form_of_money_and_token_money you can find this:

A token form of money is when a form of money (for example a coin) is created that has little or no intrinsic value, but has value because a company or person has agreed to exchange the token for a good or service of value. One example is bus tokens - small coins that can be presented on buses in exchange for transportation.

Which fits the common knowledge of what a token is, but a more strict definition is found here http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=318&chapter=9929&layout=html&Itemid=27

We must distinguish between coins according as they serve for standard money or for token money. A standard coin is one of which the value in exchange depends solely upon the value of the material contained in it. The stamp serves as a mere indication and guarantee of the quantity of fine metal. We may treat such coins as bullion, and melt them up or export them to countries where they are not legally current; yet the value of the metal being independent of legislation will everywhere be recognised.

Token coins, on the contrary, are defined in value by the fact that they can, by force of law or custom, be exchanged in a certain fixed ratio for standard coins. The metal contained in a token coin has of course a certain value; but it may be less than the legal value in almost any degree. In our English silver coinage the difference is from 9 to 12 per cent., according to the market price of silver; in our bronze coinage the difference is 75 per cent. The metal contained in the French bronze coins is in like manner equal in value to little more than one quarter of the current value. In many cases the difference has been far greater, as for instance in some of the old kreutzer pieces lately current in the German states. Woods's halfpence, which at one time created so much discontent in Ireland, or the small money previously issued by Charles II. in Ireland, are extreme instances of depreciated token money.

Therefore token money is basically ALL money we handle now-a-days, the main difference is, money handled centrally by a government authority is recognized by law, and criptocurrency is recognized by custom, is only a matter of time and social power to make custom into law.

[Luckybit]

It is kind of weird that once we made GRouPcoin and DeVCoin the constant complaints about bitcoin NOT constantly creating coins seems to have died out.

Maybe all the people who claimed that it is economically vital to keep creating coins forever were just bullshitting?

It would be useful to have them around to re-interate all their arguments, explaining that coins such as GRouPcoin and DeVCoin that keep creating coins forever are far superior to the intrinsically flawed "limited number ever" model exemplified by bitcoin...

-MarkM-

Well, the issue with limited number of coins is that... it's limited. Take the USD, for example. We have inflation because the government keeps adding more money to the pile. Why? Because the population increases. As we have more people, we need more money to help create a sort of middle ground.

I think coins like DVC are really the same. Our population (in relation to the US in the example) would be people coming on board. Think about it like this:

We have 10 coins and 10 people. Each person has one coin. Ten new people jump on board. At any given time only ten coins can be out there, which means hoarding becomes necessary or you have 0.

On the opposite side:

We have 10 coins and 10 people. Each person has one coin. Ten new people jump on board, so we create 10 new coins. As time goes on, each person can end up with their coin. Being that there is no more fear of not having any coins left, they are traded as a currency.

This is a very watered down simplification but it should help illustrate the point. The only downside to DVC is that it continues printing the same number of coins forever. So in the example above, if we got 2 more people we still have 10 new coins. If we got 0 new people, there are still 10 new coins. And if we got 50,000 more people from a village, there are still just 10 new coins.

There should be a way to adjust, in some way or another, the output based on some criteria.

I'm not against inflation, it's the rate of inflation that matters. If you inflate at 1% like PPcoin it's fine because it's still going to be scarce and it's inflating at a rate that is so small that it doesn't change that. Gold inflates too but is scarce. You can have a small amount of inflation, 1% or less. But to have infinitely large amounts like Devcoin simply does not work well for a commodity or a currency.

If the dollar is such a great currency why don't you have a lot of dollars? After all, a lot of dollars are printed up and there are way more of them than Bitcoins so why are you buying Bitcoins with your precious dollars?

For a community token you can have one token per person because the token itself is supposed to be worthless. For negotiable instruments or paper money you can have 1 dollar per person, but once again in my humble opinion it's better to keep the rate of inflation so low that demand always vastly outnumbers supply. Nintendo used to do this with game console launches, they would deliberately not produce enough of them around the Christmas season and people would have to stand in line to get them. Apple does this too, they deliberately keep supplies low to boost the demand. I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.

In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.

[Luckybit]

Luckybit,

Can you give me a quick answer to a couple questions for which I cannot find any good answer.  This is relevant to the value and future of tokens such as devcoin which is why I'm asking it here and not in PM.

1) Since you cleared these are tokens which does change a lot with my own personal theories I'm hoping you can add some color to what I've been searching for.

2) What's your take on the incredibly stable bitcoin token, an utterly worthless video game token showing incredible strength and price stability at well above $120.  From an econ point of view it's not possible for this length of time so maybe you can add some new perspective.  I firmly believe the natural forces exacerbated after a few weeks and it is now being propped up, but for what purpose, by artificial means....but who and for what purpose, again?

3)  These tokens are known about by maybe 1% of the population, and I mean, known as in knowledge not some quick thing they heard on channel 12 news.  So it's only a matter of time before awareness explodes and goes logarithmic and depending the number of tokens on the market at the time most if not all coins can stand to gain massive price appreciation, especially one such as devcoin which has a large following.  What's your take on this theory of mine and the possibility of it actually happening in my timeframe of 6-18 months or so?

4) Tokens are different than money but I think from the physics and economics point, such as supply and demand, velocity of money, turn over rate, etc,. these tokens should behave closely to the same model as money since in essence they can be treated as fiat money at some point so then their price can appreciate based on the same theories which govern the current market value of any fiat currency.  What's your take on that and perhaps a timeframe?

Thanks in advance.

regards,

Vlad

I wouldn't say money is completely different than tokens.

Enter token, get service... Tokens are really just local currency. REALLY local.

Exactly. Tokens are like tickets. You want to get on the train or bus? You buy a token. You want to gamble? Buy some chips. It's not going to gain in value over the years and it's not designed for you to keep your money in it for long periods of time. It's not designed for you to actually spend it either, it's for a specific purpose within a narrow focus of a community.

Devcoin is like that. It only exists as a support structure for Bitcoin until Bitcoin has infrastructure to pay people in Bitcoins and then Devcoin is done. No one is going to choose to get paid in Devcoins over Bitcoins just because theres an octillion Devcoins. And the moment someone comes along and forks Devcoin and adds the ability for the tokens/coupons to expire is the moment Devcoin becomes second best. Nothing is wrong with infinite inflation if the inflation is nice and slow, and if there is an expiration date. Devcoins seem to have no expiration date and are generated so fast that I cannot see how it will work up against a fork which has expiration built in.

I am 100% against the destruction of coins. This creates way too many problems. You should be able to hold some for use whenever you want, without being forced to utilize them. This is part of what creates value.

I think what needs to be done is slow down the creation of new coins. We need some way to determine how many should be made and use that to continue on. Every month or so it should be re-evaluated and altered as necessary. This will help keep the total number of coins in check, without causing problems by taking away what people have already earned. Inflation (or deflation in the form of the currency's value) will handle that all on its own, and is a much more efficient determinant.

Devcoin isn't a coin, it's a token/coupon. Coupons expire when the sale is over. That is how it works. If you're 100% against the destruction of "coins" that statement is too vague. I'm assuming you're against the destruction of Devcoins? I'm for it. I think Devcoins should deteriorate and self destruct over a period of time. This will encourage Devcoins to be used for what they are designed to be used for, which isn't a commodity. Commodities don't have infinite amounts of inflation if they are supposed to be a store of value. So why pretend like Devcoin is gold or silver? It's not a precious metal, it's not a commodity. The only purpose of having Devcoins is to trade them for Bitcoins as soon as possible. If Devcoins self destruct then it encourages people to trade them in as soon as possible which is better in my opinion if you're going to generate an unlimited amount and generate at such a high rate. The last thing we would want is to have millions of people with trillions of Devcoins hoarding them so the price can swing way up and then dumping them all at once so the price can dip down to less than 1/1000th of a cent. This kind of volatility is bad for something like Devcoin where people are expecting to earn a reasonable amount of money for labor and stability is everything.

If a case can be made for why Devcoin can have an infinite supply of tokens, that never self destruct, (even paper currency deteriorates and even coupons expire), then please make the case. If we look at nature the way nature balances life forms with fast metabolisms and generation rates is that they don't live as long. Basically nature keeps the balance by saying if you generate billions a month, you only live for 6 months anyway. If it wasn't like this then we'd be overwhelmed by insects that will live forever and reproduce in the trillion trillion trillions. I think you can see why it does not scale.

I think the concept of Freicoin's demurrage is intriguing, they basically selfdestruct at a fixed percentage over time. Such a demurrage could be added to devcoin (or rather a follow up) and the generation of new coins balanced with the demurrage to keep the total number of coins steady in the long run.

Combined with devcoin's 90% model, this would allow a foundation to constantly hand out coins for work, because the generation would never cease, while making the coins valuable. To keep a certain amount of coins one would either have to work for them constantly or buy more of them... I'm not sure if this would work out over a long time span, but the current non-stop process is guaranteed to make devcoins worthless in the future.

I agree with this 100%.

[weisoq]

...I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.

In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.

In terms of your points highlighted above, assuming they're true, please explain then why anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category would choose to acquire and use btc as currency? And here I mean btc specifically, not SEAsiaBlockcoin, or US Shipping Industy coin etc.

[Luckybit]

...I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.

In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.

In terms of your points highlighted above, assuming they're true, please explain then why anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category would choose to acquire and use btc as currency? And here I mean btc specifically, not SEAsiaBlockcoin, or US Shipping Industy coin etc.

Right now we are all early adopters. Some were luckier than others but if you have a whole Bitcoin you're pretty damn lucky.

On the other hand even if you don't have a whole Bitcoin, even if you're very late it may still be better than whatever your national currency was.  What if you were late to buy gold and now the gold bubble is as high as it can get and you never got in early? It happens. What if you missed the dot com bubble? Even if you missed the Bitcoin train there are Litecoins and PPCoins. So at this point, the technology is so new that I don't think anyone involved in the Bitcoin community right now should consider themselves unlucky.

I also don't think people should get into Bitcoin to get rich quick. If you don't truly understand what Bitcoin can do for the world beyond make you rich then you're not a true supporter of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies.

[weisoq]

...I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.

In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.

In terms of your points highlighted above, assuming they're true, please explain then why anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category would choose to acquire and use btc as currency? And here I mean btc specifically, not SEAsiaBlockcoin, or US Shipping Industy coin etc.

Right now we are all early adopters. Some were luckier than others but if you have a whole Bitcoin you're pretty damn lucky.

On the other hand even if you don't have a whole Bitcoin, even if you're very late it may still be better than whatever your national currency was.  What if you were late to buy gold and now the gold bubble is as high as it can get and you never got in early? It happens. What if you missed the dot com bubble? Even if you missed the Bitcoin train there are Litecoins and PPCoins. So at this point, the technology is so new that I don't think anyone involved in the Bitcoin community right now should consider themselves unlucky.

I also don't think people should get into Bitcoin to get rich quick. If you don't truly understand what Bitcoin can do for the world beyond make you rich then you're not a true supporter of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies.

Your text in bold is my point, and contradicts your own assertions on bitcoin. If you acknowledge an inherent value to any 'replicated' blockchain, where do you draw the line? Wherever that line is drawn if it encompasses replication it then becomes arbitrary. The problem with bitcoin is there aren't enough of them (in price terms), and at some point communities rather than individuals here will form alternatives to better serve their own demands. To bring this back to devcoin (as we're on the devcoin thread), dvc isn't perfect but it doesn't even try to feign scarcity. This is where bitcoin went wrong, or right, depending on your perspective and intent.

[Luckybit]

...I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.

In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.

In terms of your points highlighted above, assuming they're true, please explain then why anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category would choose to acquire and use btc as currency? And here I mean btc specifically, not SEAsiaBlockcoin, or US Shipping Industy coin etc.

Right now we are all early adopters. Some were luckier than others but if you have a whole Bitcoin you're pretty damn lucky.

On the other hand even if you don't have a whole Bitcoin, even if you're very late it may still be better than whatever your national currency was.  What if you were late to buy gold and now the gold bubble is as high as it can get and you never got in early? It happens. What if you missed the dot com bubble? Even if you missed the Bitcoin train there are Litecoins and PPCoins. So at this point, the technology is so new that I don't think anyone involved in the Bitcoin community right now should consider themselves unlucky.

I also don't think people should get into Bitcoin to get rich quick. If you don't truly understand what Bitcoin can do for the world beyond make you rich then you're not a true supporter of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies.

Your text in bold is my point, and contradicts your own assertions on bitcoin. If you acknowledge an inherent value to any 'replicated' blockchain, where do you draw the line? Wherever that line is drawn if it encompasses replication it then becomes arbitrary. The problem with bitcoin is there aren't enough of them (in price terms), and at some point communities rather than individuals here will form alternatives to better serve their own demands. To bring this back to devcoin (as we're on the devcoin thread), dvc isn't perfect but it doesn't even try to feign scarcity. This is where bitcoin went wrong, or right, depending on your perspective and intent.

I disagree with you. I think there are plenty of Bitcoins (21 million is enough for all of us). I believe this because I believe at some point a dollar can be worth a Satoshi, and if a dollar is worth a Satoshi then you have way plenty of Bitcoins. You aren't entitled to a whole Bitcoin any more than you are entitled to a million dollars. Go earn more if you want more than what you started with. We can blame Bitcoin only for not having the infrastructure to allow us to earn more, but I don't think we need more total Bitcoins. If you work and earn more Bitcoins then you can get more and that is all, that is sufficient for me at least.

I do not support arbitrary inflation of cryptocurrencies. I do support PPcoin, I'm not much of a fan of Litecoin but I do understand that with Bitcoin not really dealing in small transactions that Litecoin may actually be necessary. I do believe that Litecoin should have had the same total number as Bitcoin or perhaps half, because I believe the time to sell Litecoins is the moment it surpasses the total number of Bitcoins in the market.

Bitcoins are at 11 million? If there are more than 11 million Litecoins right now but Litecoins have a smaller market cap than Bitcoins the smart thing to do right now would be to trade your Litecoins for Bitcoins right now. PPcoins on the other hand are a completely different technology, at some point it could be worth more than Bitcoins or less depending on whether or not Proof of Stake works. If Proof of Stake works then PPcoin will surpass Bitcoin due to lower transaction fees and the security by design against 51% attacks along with the energy efficiency and the fact that as more people adopt it, it becomes even more deflationary than Bitcoin in some ways (because saving/hoarding it actually mints new coins by Proof of Stake).

[weisoq]

I disagree with you. I think there are plenty of Bitcoins. You aren't entitled to a whole Bitcoin any more than you are entitled to a million dollars. Go earn more if you want more than what you started with. We can blame Bitcoin only for not having the infrastructure to allow us to earn more, but I don't think we need more total Bitcoins. If you work and earn more Bitcoins then you can get more and that is all that is sufficient for me at least.

How can you disagree with me, I was referencing your quote. If there are plenty of bitcoins then why are there litecoins, ppcoins etc, and then why do you assign value to them? Or to put it another way, do you really believe that bitcoiners have taken up a struggle against the political distribution system, but that nobody else will take up the struggle against the bitcoin distribution system?

[Luckybit]

I disagree with you. I think there are plenty of Bitcoins. You aren't entitled to a whole Bitcoin any more than you are entitled to a million dollars. Go earn more if you want more than what you started with. We can blame Bitcoin only for not having the infrastructure to allow us to earn more, but I don't think we need more total Bitcoins. If you work and earn more Bitcoins then you can get more and that is all that is sufficient for me at least.

How can you disagree with me, I was referencing your quote. If there are plenty of bitcoins then why are there litecoins, ppcoins etc, and then why do you assign value to them? Or to put it another way, do you really believe that bitcoiners have taken up a struggle against the political distribution system, but that nobody else will take up the struggle against the bitcoin distribution system?

As I said before, the purpose of PPcoin isn't to be like Bitcoin but to be something better. It's got better security, it's more energy efficient, it's potentially more deflationary. PPcoin is just a better idea, but whether or not it can work is up for grabs. Litecoin on the other hand exists as it does because of a design flaw in Bitcoin where if everyone tried to use Bitcoin for micro-transactions there would be all kinds of problems with it, and also the fact that because it requires so many confirmations that perhaps Bitcoin is too secure for adoption. I don't believe Litecoin will last because it's not better than Bitcoin as a technology and is mainly just hyped up because it appeals to GPU miners, but the community likes Litecoins so I will have to support it for now.

That being said, it's about cryptocurrencies and not Bitcoin in specific. Bitcoin is the first but it wont be the best technology. This means if someone didn't get in on Bitcoin as an early adopter they'll probably get in on the successor. Those who are late to cryptocurrencies in general will be the ones who are unlucky.

No I don't believe only Bitcoiners are taking it to the political distribution system. Anyone who is locked out of the system will have incentive to find alternative survival strategies and lifestyles. Considering how many young people are without jobs and without hope of surviving in the current system as it is, either the current system has to be changed by the young jobless or the young jobless will not survive. For that reason there will be a lot of young people adopting cryptocurrencies as a way to survive the unsustainable political based economy.

[weisoq]

Ok so we seem to be in agreement then that it’s about cryptos generally, not bitcoin. In which case to bring this full circle and as a statement rather than question this time: why would anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category of early adopter choose to acquire and use btc as currency. Probably worth some thought, and then what that may mean for the issue of relative inflation of growing numbers of so-called other crypto currencies vs devcoin's.  And speaking of survival strategies, unemployment and crypto adoption, there just so happens to be a coin to assist in addressing that

[alyssa85]

Exactly. Tokens are like tickets. You want to get on the train or bus? You buy a token. You want to gamble? Buy some chips. It's not going to gain in value over the years and it's not designed for you to keep your money in it for long periods of time. It's not designed for you to actually spend it either, it's for a specific purpose within a narrow focus of a community.

Devcoin is like that. It only exists as a support structure for Bitcoin until Bitcoin has infrastructure to pay people in Bitcoins and then Devcoin is done. No one is going to choose to get paid in Devcoins over Bitcoins just because theres an octillion Devcoins. And the moment someone comes along and forks Devcoin and adds the ability for the tokens/coupons to expire is the moment Devcoin becomes second best. Nothing is wrong with infinite inflation if the inflation is nice and slow, and if there is an expiration date. Devcoins seem to have no expiration date and are generated so fast that I cannot see how it will work up against a fork which has expiration built in.

I disagree. Have just done another Devtome article on Bitcoins and the Big Mac Index:

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=bitcoin_and_the_big_mac_index

As you can see Bitcoins are already becoming un-usable for transactions in some parts of the world (and that will soon be the case in the developed world too).

Some people laughed at the Winklevii for buying bitcoins and simply putting them in bank vaults - but perhaps they saw the nature of it more clearly - which is that it is a commodity not a currency. As soon as it becomes unviable for transactions, it ceases to be a currency, IMO.

[osoverflow]

Exactly. Tokens are like tickets. You want to get on the train or bus? You buy a token. You want to gamble? Buy some chips. It's not going to gain in value over the years and it's not designed for you to keep your money in it for long periods of time. It's not designed for you to actually spend it either, it's for a specific purpose within a narrow focus of a community.

Devcoin is like that. It only exists as a support structure for Bitcoin until Bitcoin has infrastructure to pay people in Bitcoins and then Devcoin is done. No one is going to choose to get paid in Devcoins over Bitcoins just because theres an octillion Devcoins. And the moment someone comes along and forks Devcoin and adds the ability for the tokens/coupons to expire is the moment Devcoin becomes second best. Nothing is wrong with infinite inflation if the inflation is nice and slow, and if there is an expiration date. Devcoins seem to have no expiration date and are generated so fast that I cannot see how it will work up against a fork which has expiration built in.

I disagree. Have just done another Devtome article on Bitcoins and the Big Mac Index:

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=bitcoin_and_the_big_mac_index

As you can see Bitcoins are already becoming un-usable for transactions in some parts of the world (and that will soon be the case in the developed world too).

Some people laughed at the Winklevii for buying bitcoins and simply putting them in bank vaults - but perhaps they saw the nature of it more clearly - which is that it is a commodity not a currency. As soon as it becomes unviable for transactions, it ceases to be a currency, IMO.

Bitcoin should have a fee based on percent of the amount instead of fixed number of uBTC, who define how much fee is for a transaction? the nodes? the client?

[alyssa85]

Exactly. Tokens are like tickets. You want to get on the train or bus? You buy a token. You want to gamble? Buy some chips. It's not going to gain in value over the years and it's not designed for you to keep your money in it for long periods of time. It's not designed for you to actually spend it either, it's for a specific purpose within a narrow focus of a community.

Devcoin is like that. It only exists as a support structure for Bitcoin until Bitcoin has infrastructure to pay people in Bitcoins and then Devcoin is done. No one is going to choose to get paid in Devcoins over Bitcoins just because theres an octillion Devcoins. And the moment someone comes along and forks Devcoin and adds the ability for the tokens/coupons to expire is the moment Devcoin becomes second best. Nothing is wrong with infinite inflation if the inflation is nice and slow, and if there is an expiration date. Devcoins seem to have no expiration date and are generated so fast that I cannot see how it will work up against a fork which has expiration built in.

I disagree. Have just done another Devtome article on Bitcoins and the Big Mac Index:

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=bitcoin_and_the_big_mac_index

As you can see Bitcoins are already becoming un-usable for transactions in some parts of the world (and that will soon be the case in the developed world too).

Some people laughed at the Winklevii for buying bitcoins and simply putting them in bank vaults - but perhaps they saw the nature of it more clearly - which is that it is a commodity not a currency. As soon as it becomes unviable for transactions, it ceases to be a currency, IMO.

Bitcoin should have a fee based on percent of the amount instead of fixed number of uBTC, who define how much fee is for a transaction? the nodes? the client?

It's the miners who demand the fee - and we're already seeing exorbitant fee demands based on the number of inputs. On reddit someone posted their problem of trying to send $10 and being charged a fee of $9 (because the transaction was made up of many inputs). We've also seen blocks mined with no tranactions included at all, just the 25BTC reward.

The greed of the miners will kill the project especially when combined with it's forced deflationary aspect. I think it will end up as just another asset and devcoin or another coin will be used for real commerce.

[osoverflow]

Exactly. Tokens are like tickets. You want to get on the train or bus? You buy a token. You want to gamble? Buy some chips. It's not going to gain in value over the years and it's not designed for you to keep your money in it for long periods of time. It's not designed for you to actually spend it either, it's for a specific purpose within a narrow focus of a community.

Devcoin is like that. It only exists as a support structure for Bitcoin until Bitcoin has infrastructure to pay people in Bitcoins and then Devcoin is done. No one is going to choose to get paid in Devcoins over Bitcoins just because theres an octillion Devcoins. And the moment someone comes along and forks Devcoin and adds the ability for the tokens/coupons to expire is the moment Devcoin becomes second best. Nothing is wrong with infinite inflation if the inflation is nice and slow, and if there is an expiration date. Devcoins seem to have no expiration date and are generated so fast that I cannot see how it will work up against a fork which has expiration built in.

I disagree. Have just done another Devtome article on Bitcoins and the Big Mac Index:

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=bitcoin_and_the_big_mac_index

As you can see Bitcoins are already becoming un-usable for transactions in some parts of the world (and that will soon be the case in the developed world too).

Some people laughed at the Winklevii for buying bitcoins and simply putting them in bank vaults - but perhaps they saw the nature of it more clearly - which is that it is a commodity not a currency. As soon as it becomes unviable for transactions, it ceases to be a currency, IMO.

Bitcoin should have a fee based on percent of the amount instead of fixed number of uBTC, who define how much fee is for a transaction? the nodes? the client?

It's the miners who demand the fee - and we're already seeing exorbitant fee demands based on the number of inputs. On reddit someone posted their problem of trying to send $10 and being charged a fee of $9 (because the transaction was made up of many inputs). We've also seen blocks mined with no tranactions included at all, just the 25BTC reward.

The greed of the miners will kill the project especially when combined with it's forced deflationary aspect. I think it will end up as just another asset and devcoin or another coin will be used for real commerce.

I found this link: http://bitcoinfees.com/

It explains who decide the fee. It seems that it is the client based on some formula.

[TaxReturn]

The fee is not a constant and can be arbitrarily changed. Should bitcoin rise enough in value it will be lowered accordingly. The discussion about bitcoin becoming nonviable for low value transactions because of high fees is nonsense. Note that even the dust limit exists only because such low values are not worth to be processed *at the present time*.