whtchocla7e (OP)
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 116
Worlds Simplest Cryptocurrency Wallet
|
|
January 21, 2014, 12:30:57 AM |
|
Why was Bitcoin designed in such a way that the rewards from mining decrease over time?
The current system is designed to give a lot to very few in the beginning and then continue to give less and less rewards as the network grows.
After N years, who makes up the backbone of the network? The first few (assuming they didn't cash out)? Or the thousands or millions of new miners? That's a rhetorical question by the way.
A system in which the reward increases over time (relative) could still be designed in such a way to benefit the early adopters and at the same time spread the wealth among more users (I don't have a specific proposal off the top of my head before someone asks). But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
|
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▅▆█ L E A D █▆▅▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂ World's Simplest and Safest Decentralized Cryptocurrency Wallet! ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ • STORE • SEND • SPEND • SWAP • STAKE • ▬▬▬▬▬▬
|
|
|
gollum
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
In Hashrate We Trust!
|
|
January 21, 2014, 12:35:13 AM |
|
I believe the S-curve would be the most fair reward model for a crypto currency X-axis = time Y-axis = block reward Phase 1: few early adaptors, low reward totally but still huge reward per miner Phase 2: many new users and higher reward, still huge reward per miner Phase 3: stabilization and curve going down to low inflation, many miners and users, low reward per miner Number of total miners:
|
|
|
|
BitcoinBobbeh
|
|
January 21, 2014, 12:35:35 AM |
|
But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Or maybe you're just butthurt you didn't start mining in 2011. Which do you think is most likely?
|
By the end of next month at the latest we will have permanently left behind 3 digits. You can quote me on this.
|
|
|
StevenS
|
|
January 21, 2014, 12:54:14 AM |
|
Minors will always collect transaction fees. In the future, the transaction fees will become a bigger part of the block reward.
|
|
|
|
grunt
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 43
Merit: 0
|
|
January 21, 2014, 12:55:46 AM |
|
Without decreasing rewards bitcoin wouldn't be deflationary; we would all be a lot poorer. Decreasing rewards boost the price, and in turn increase rewards relative to fiat currencies.
|
|
|
|
gollum
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
In Hashrate We Trust!
|
|
January 21, 2014, 12:57:56 AM |
|
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
It can be done by letting an algorithm base the reward on: *number of transactions per day *number of addresses *number of miners *price of XYZ_Coin vs XAU...
|
|
|
|
Luckybit
|
|
January 21, 2014, 03:28:18 AM |
|
Without decreasing rewards bitcoin wouldn't be deflationary; we would all be a lot poorer. Decreasing rewards boost the price, and in turn increase rewards relative to fiat currencies.
Bitcoin isn't deflationary, it's inflationary because new coins are always being generated by PoW. Please stop spreading that meme.
|
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
January 21, 2014, 03:40:23 AM |
|
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
It can be done by letting an algorithm base the reward on: *number of transactions per day *number of addresses *number of miners *price of XYZ_Coin vs XAU...
Yeah, good luck with designing that algorithm ...
|
|
|
|
gollum
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
In Hashrate We Trust!
|
|
January 21, 2014, 03:45:26 AM |
|
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
It can be done by letting an algorithm base the reward on: *number of transactions per day *number of addresses *number of miners *price of XYZ_Coin vs XAU...
Yeah, good luck with designing that algorithm ... Or we could assign Ben Shalom Bernanke as the chairman of Central Bank of Bitcoinistan to handle the monetary policy of Bitcoin. Central banks are not as bad as people in this forum believes, the Fed has actually been pretty good at keeping prices of goods in USDollars more or less stable year to year.
|
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 3391
|
|
January 21, 2014, 03:53:55 AM |
|
Why was Bitcoin designed in such a way that the rewards from mining decrease over time?
The current system is designed to give a lot to very few in the beginning and then continue to give less and less rewards as the network grows.
After N years, who makes up the backbone of the network? The first few (assuming they didn't cash out)? Or the thousands or millions of new miners? That's a rhetorical question by the way.
A system in which the reward increases over time (relative) could still be designed in such a way to benefit the early adopters and at the same time spread the wealth among more users (I don't have a specific proposal off the top of my head before someone asks). But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Bitcoins aren't "given" to anyone. Ask any bitcoin miner, and they will tell you that it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to earn just a tiny share of the block reward. It has been that way since the beginning. No miners have gotten rich from mining, and they never will. The people that have gotten rich are the people that have accumulated bitcoins regardless of whether they mined them, traded for them, or earned them. What you are really complaining about is the fact that some people risked their time and money on Bitcoin, and that they have been rewarded for that risk.
|
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns. PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
whtchocla7e (OP)
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 116
Worlds Simplest Cryptocurrency Wallet
|
|
January 21, 2014, 04:18:01 AM |
|
Why was Bitcoin designed in such a way that the rewards from mining decrease over time?
The current system is designed to give a lot to very few in the beginning and then continue to give less and less rewards as the network grows.
After N years, who makes up the backbone of the network? The first few (assuming they didn't cash out)? Or the thousands or millions of new miners? That's a rhetorical question by the way.
A system in which the reward increases over time (relative) could still be designed in such a way to benefit the early adopters and at the same time spread the wealth among more users (I don't have a specific proposal off the top of my head before someone asks). But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Bitcoins aren't "given" to anyone. Ask any bitcoin miner, and they will tell you that it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to earn just a tiny share of the block reward. It has been that way since the beginning. No miners have gotten rich from mining, and they never will. The people that have gotten rich are the people that have accumulated bitcoins regardless of whether they mined them, traded for them, or earned them. What you are really complaining about is the fact that some people risked their time and money on Bitcoin, and that they have been rewarded for that risk. No, I'm not talking about the people who accumulated bitcoins by trading or earning them. I'm talking about rewards from solving blocks. And my point was... it didn't take much time or effort or money to mine blocks # 1, 2, 3... Yes, NOW it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to mine a small amount a of bitcoin. So looking at historical data up to this point, one could say, in essence, that the system was setup to: A) give big rewards for putting minimal time, effort, money into mining B) give small rewards for putting a lot of time, effort, money into mining as time went on. Why was time chosen to be a variable?
|
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▅▆█ L E A D █▆▅▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂ World's Simplest and Safest Decentralized Cryptocurrency Wallet! ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ • STORE • SEND • SPEND • SWAP • STAKE • ▬▬▬▬▬▬
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
January 21, 2014, 04:48:33 AM |
|
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
It can be done by letting an algorithm base the reward on: *number of transactions per day *number of addresses *number of miners *price of XYZ_Coin vs XAU...
Yeah, good luck with designing that algorithm ... Or we could assign Ben Shalom Bernanke as the chairman of Central Bank of Bitcoinistan to handle the monetary policy of Bitcoin. Central banks are not as bad as people in this forum believes, the Fed has actually been pretty good at keeping prices of goods in USDollars more or less stable year to year. I hope you were being ironic, but I fear not ..... you want the Fed to control the price of bitcoin? Let me out of here
|
|
|
|
Holliday
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
|
|
January 21, 2014, 04:52:47 AM |
|
A system in which the reward increases over time (relative) could still be designed in such a way to benefit the early adopters and at the same time spread the wealth among more users (I don't have a specific proposal off the top of my head before someone asks). But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Perhaps Bitcoin would have never bootstrapped had the reward scheme been different than Satoshi's? Perhaps something as new and different as Bitcoin needed a group of early adopters who would keep pushing regardless of how many times they were told, "It will never work"? Perhaps they needed a reason beyond simply shaking things up? Perhaps profit is fantastic motivation to succeed?
|
If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
January 21, 2014, 04:59:25 AM |
|
A system in which the reward increases over time (relative) could still be designed in such a way to benefit the early adopters and at the same time spread the wealth among more users (I don't have a specific proposal off the top of my head before someone asks). But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Perhaps Bitcoin would have never bootstrapped had the reward scheme been different than Satoshi's? Perhaps something as new and different as Bitcoin needed a group of early adopters who would keep pushing regardless of how many times they were told, "It will never work"? Perhaps they needed a reason beyond simply shaking things up? Perhaps profit is fantastic motivation to succeed? +1 The proof is in the bitcoin pudding
|
|
|
|
cp1
|
|
January 21, 2014, 05:00:25 AM |
|
You're welcome to make your own version if you don't like this one. It was designed this way because the designer thought it was a good idea, so he tried it out. Try yours out and see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 3391
|
|
January 21, 2014, 05:54:30 AM |
|
No, I'm not talking about the people who accumulated bitcoins by trading or earning them. I'm talking about rewards from solving blocks. And my point was... it didn't take much time or effort or money to mine blocks # 1, 2, 3...
Yes, NOW it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to mine a small amount a of bitcoin.
So looking at historical data up to this point, one could say, in essence, that the system was setup to: A) give big rewards for putting minimal time, effort, money into mining B) give small rewards for putting a lot of time, effort, money into mining
as time went on. Why was time chosen to be a variable?
You are correct that it didn't take much time and effort to mine the earlier blocks, but you are missing a very important point. The value of the bitcoins in block 1, 2, and 3 were 0. In fact, the first 70,000 blocks were worth nothing because the value of a bitcoin at that time was 0. You are complaining that it isn't fair that a group of people were able to spend a bunch of time, effort and money mining worthless bitcoins. Consider Laszlo Hanyecz, who paid 10,000 BTC for two pizzas in 2010. At that time, it would have taken weeks to mine those 200 blocks. Are you are saying that it is not fair that he was able to mine $20 worth of bitcoins in a few weeks?
|
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns. PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
January 21, 2014, 06:06:57 AM |
|
No, I'm not talking about the people who accumulated bitcoins by trading or earning them. I'm talking about rewards from solving blocks. And my point was... it didn't take much time or effort or money to mine blocks # 1, 2, 3...
Yes, NOW it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to mine a small amount a of bitcoin.
So looking at historical data up to this point, one could say, in essence, that the system was setup to: A) give big rewards for putting minimal time, effort, money into mining B) give small rewards for putting a lot of time, effort, money into mining
as time went on. Why was time chosen to be a variable?
You are correct that it didn't take much time and effort to mine the earlier blocks, but you are missing a very important point. The value of the bitcoins in block 1, 2, and 3 were 0. In fact, the first 70,000 blocks were worth nothing because the value of a bitcoin at that time was 0. You are complaining that it isn't fair that a group of people were able to spend a bunch of time, effort and money mining worthless bitcoins. Consider Laszlo Hanyecz, who paid 10,000 BTC for two pizzas in 2010. At that time, it would have taken weeks to mine those 200 blocks. Are you are saying that it is not fair that he was able to mine $20 worth of bitcoins in a few weeks? So true. Its like people mining altcoins now. Solving "puzzles" very quickly but for little reward. Just like it was in the early bitcoin days. There's nothing inherently unfair about it. Seems a pretty decent system to me.
|
|
|
|
Ix
|
|
January 21, 2014, 07:40:59 AM |
|
But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Or, it's good to be king. And maybe one of his commanders. The rest, not so much. I don't know how much time Satoshi spent thinking about the coin distribution, but it seems rather obvious (only in hindsight? nah) how it would play out were bitcoin to become successful. But, you know, he deserves to be king since he said "let there be light." Anyways...
|
|
|
|
cr1776
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4172
Merit: 1312
|
|
January 21, 2014, 11:22:07 AM |
|
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
It can be done by letting an algorithm base the reward on: *number of transactions per day *number of addresses *number of miners *price of XYZ_Coin vs XAU...
Yeah, good luck with designing that algorithm ... Or we could assign Ben Shalom Bernanke as the chairman of Central Bank of Bitcoinistan to handle the monetary policy of Bitcoin. Central banks are not as bad as people in this forum believes, the Fed has actually been pretty good at keeping prices of goods in USDollars more or less stable year to year.True, if you define stable to mean losing 95% of its value in a human lifetime (my grandmother live to be about 100). Ditto for the Canadian dollar etc. Or half it's value in 20-25 years.
|
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
January 21, 2014, 11:52:13 AM |
|
The optimal crypto currency should have a built in algorithm for price stability, just like central banks try to target 1-2% inflation.
It can be done by letting an algorithm base the reward on: *number of transactions per day *number of addresses *number of miners *price of XYZ_Coin vs XAU...
Yeah, good luck with designing that algorithm ... Or we could assign Ben Shalom Bernanke as the chairman of Central Bank of Bitcoinistan to handle the monetary policy of Bitcoin. Central banks are not as bad as people in this forum believes, the Fed has actually been pretty good at keeping prices of goods in USDollars more or less stable year to year.True, if you define stable to mean losing 95% of its value in a human lifetime (my grandmother live to be about 100). Ditto for the Canadian dollar etc. Or half it's value in 20-25 years. Someone had to say it
|
|
|
|
|