Limited coins and hoarding

[bulanula]

I like you proposal and it sounds good. Why not implement it already mate ? I feel you like to talk a lot but little coding or actual doing the coin

Any benefits for early adopters or did I get that wrong too ?

To the skeptics : nothing is ever 100% perfect. Not Satoshi. Not bitcoin. Nothing.

[1715211104]

1715211104

[1715211104]

1715211104

[1715211104]

1715211104

[1715211104]

1715211104

[Etlase2]

So you claim but it is unproven.  Why not make it rather than making grand claims.  I will believe a manipulation proof currency when I see one. 

Because I can't, that was part of the proposal. I don't have any network programming experience. I could eventually learn, sure, but that would involve spending a lot more time than I already have before I could even begin. IF enough interest is generated, I'd probably be willing to pay to have someone help. As yet, no emails.

One that actually exists.  One that is even plausible to exist.  I read you papers.  The amount of complexity is staggering.  How are you going to convince people to have faith in something 99% of planet won't understand.  CryptoCurrency is a leap upward in level of understanding required.  Your scheme is a couple magnitudes higher.

Drama queen again. I could program most of the complexity in a few hundred lines of pseudo-code if it wasn't a waste of time. It took satoshi what, 9 pages to describe only the block chain in his white paper. He didn't touch on anything about the network protocol, the coin distribution, potential economic effects, etc. whereas all this is included in my 20 page proposal. I could describe the transaction block chain and how it provides security in my proposal easily in 9 pages or less.

I predict that 5 years from now you will still be railing on about the unequal distribution of early coins (which will be a smaller and smaller portion of monetary base) and enCoin still won't exist.

I predict that 5 years from now bitcoins will be worth pennies again. *shrug*

[DeathAndTaxes]

I predict that 5 years from now bitcoins will be worth pennies again. *shrug*

They may be but at least they existed and people learned from it, and at pennies would still have some value. 

Napster is gone but it lead to decentralized file sharing and then eventually bittorrent.

[Etlase2]

I've never knocked on bitcoin as a proof of concept; I think it is amazing that it has proven something like this is possible. I think relying on hashing power to secure the network will end up being a very large flaw though, either in wasting computing resources and electricity for as long as bitcoin exists or by the possibility of someone subverting it during a period of low faith or by finding an improvement in the hashing of SHA2 and using it against bitcoin. It is highly inefficient and inelegant. But I don't knock satoshi for that, it was the first try after all.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I've never knocked on bitcoin as a proof of concept; I think it is amazing that it has proven something like this is possible. I think relying on hashing power to secure the network will end up being a very large flaw though, either in wasting computing resources and electricity for as long as bitcoin exists or by the possibility of someone subverting it during a period of low faith or by finding an improvement in the hashing of SHA2 and using it against bitcoin. It is highly inefficient and inelegant. But I don't knock satoshi for that, it was the first try after all.

That is a misnomer. It isn't wasting anything. 

The money and electricity spent is what protects the network.  It isn't like network security is magic and then miners waste electricity looking for coins.  There is no other mechanism to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust. 

[ElectricMucus]

I predict that 5 years from now bitcoins will be worth pennies again. *shrug*

They may be but at least they existed and people learned from it, and at pennies would still have some value. 

Napster is gone but it lead to decentralized file sharing and then eventually bittorrent.

Ironically bittorrent is a worse system than lets say gnutella or edonkey or ever heard of directconnect?

Learning doesn't always mean that the best solution is chosen, what matters most is what kind of people are attracted to it.

[Etlase2]

That is a misnomer. It isn't wasting anything.  

The money and electricity spent is what protects the network.  It isn't like network security is magic and then miners waste electricity looking for coins.  There is no other mechanism to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust.  

That is not the definition of misnomer. And I came up with a solution to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust, only the combined trust of the network. It is a similar manner as 51% in hashing, except that no electricity or hashing power is needed (except for transaction verification anyway). You sure you read my proposal?

Ironically bittorrent is a worse system than lets say gnutella or edonkey or ever heard of directconnect?

I've heard of and used them all, and I still think bittorrent is light-years better. They fit different forms of sharing, but bittorrent is by far the easiest and most efficient.

[DeathAndTaxes]

And I came up with a solution to secure transactions that doesn't rely on 3rd party trust, only the combined trust of the network. It is a similar manner as 51% in hashing, except that no electricity or hashing power is needed (except for transaction verification anyway). You sure you read my proposal?

No you didn't.  By definition anyone other than the sender or receiver is a third party.  Your system requires trusting in third parties.  Bitcoin doesn't.

[quartz92]

At this rate, we're never going to hit the cap anyhow.

[Etlase2]

No you didn't.  By definition anyone other than the sender or receiver is a third party.  Your system requires trusting in third parties.  Bitcoin doesn't.

So you don't have to trust a miner to put his transaction in his transaction block? It's amazing how much credit you are willing to give bitcoin that isn't there.

[DeathAndTaxes]

No you didn't.  By definition anyone other than the sender or receiver is a third party.  Your system requires trusting in third parties.  Bitcoin doesn't.

So you don't have to trust a miner to put his transaction in his transaction block? It's amazing how much credit you are willing to give bitcoin that isn't there.

No.  I can put my own transaction in a block if you are willing to wait long enough.

[Etlase2]

So in what way is that different from my system? Anyone can join the tradenet. Anyone will eventually get a transaction block.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So in what way is that different from my system? Anyone can join the tradenet. Anyone will eventually get a transaction block.

Because it involves people.  People who can be bribed, coerced, tricked.  There is a well know vulnerability to Bitcoin "the 51% attack" but it is well known.  There is no need to trust miners just numbers.  If attacker has 51% of hashing power they can attack the network. 

The more complicated the system and the more it involves fallible human the more likely there are yet to be known vulnerabilities.  How many unknown vulnerabilities exist in enCoin well given it's insanely high complexity in every aspect I would imagine a lot. 

[Etlase2]

Miners aren't people? LOL

[DeathAndTaxes]

Miners aren't people? LOL

Whatever.  Obviously your intent it just to troll, misrepresent and obfuscate. 

Welcome to ignore, an accomplishment as you are the first.

[bulanula]

Miners aren't people? LOL

Whatever.  Obviously your intent it just to troll, misrepresent and obfuscate. 

Welcome to ignore, an accomplishment as you are the first.

You are quite right there mate. All talk no walk. We want to see EnCoin actually launched. Too much talking no doing around these parts.

Take a hint from Satoshi : "I'm better with code than with words though."

[Etlase2]

Unlike Satoshi, I am actually trying to put thought into and get input on monetary policy.

[MoonShadow]

Unlike Satoshi, I am actually trying to put thought into and get input on monetary policy.

Except that your pursuit of monetary policy opinions tend to filter out those whom you disagree with.  Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with this, as it has to be done in some fashion; but the end result is the same as Satoshi's.

[Etlase2]

Except that your pursuit of monetary policy opinions tend to filter out those whom you disagree with.  Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with this, as it has to be done in some fashion; but the end result is the same as Satoshi's.

The only one who has actually put any input on monetary policy has been Red, and he has done oodles and I have incorporated a lot of his ideas. Most everyone else just argues it won't work for one misguided reason or another, and I spend my time explaining how it could. Bitcoin has turned a lot of people into monday morning quarterback economists, often ignoring the fact that a lot of the good part of bitcoin's economy is lack of government intervention, not fixed supply. I go one step further and say hey, instead of having an arbitrary amount of money in the supply, how about we let people decide how much money is in the supply.

It's not as if there is no school of thought behind this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

This theory draws its roots from two almost diametrically opposed ideas: the hard money policies that dominated monetary thinking in the late 19th century, and the monetary theories of John Maynard Keynes, who, working in the inter-war period during the failure of the restored gold standard, proposed a demand-driven model for money which was the foundation of macroeconomics. While Keynes had focused on the value stability of currency, with the resulting panics based on an insufficient money supply leading to alternate currency and collapse, then Friedman focused on price stability, which is the equilibrium between supply and demand for money.

...

Friedman originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman's k-percent rule, where the money supply would be calculated by known macroeconomic and financial factors, targeting a specific level or range of inflation. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the central reserve bank as money supply increases could be determined "by a computer", and business could anticipate all monetary policy decisions.

...

Instead, monetarist thinking centers on the contraction of the M1 during the 1931-1933 period, and argues from there that the Federal Reserve could have avoided the Great Depression by moves to provide sufficient liquidity. In essence, they argue that there was an insufficient supply of money.

From their conclusion that incorrect central bank policy is at the root of large swings in inflation and price instability, monetarists argued that the primary motivation for excessive easing of central bank policy is to finance fiscal deficits by the central government. Hence, restraint of government spending is the most important single target to restrain excessive monetary growth.

...

Monetarists of the Milton Friedman school of thought believed in the 1970s and 1980s that the growth of the money supply should be based on certain formulations related to economic growth. As such, they can be regarded as advocates of a monetary policy based on a "quantity of money" target. This can be contrasted with the monetary policy advocated by supply side economics and the Austrian School which are based on a "value of money" target (albeit from different ends of the formula). Austrian economists criticise monetarism for not recognizing the citizens' subjective value of money and trying to create an objective value through supply and demand.

...

While most monetarists believe that government action is at the root of inflation, very few advocate a return to the gold standard. Friedman, for example, viewed a pure gold standard as highly impractical.[15] For example, whereas one of the benefits of the gold standard is that the intrinsic limitations to the growth of the money supply by the use of gold or silver would prevent inflation, if the growth of population or increase in trade outpaces the money supply, there would be no way to counteract deflation and reduced liquidity (and any attendant recession) except for the mining of more gold or silver under a gold or silver standard.

Note how austrian economists criticize a property that would not exist in encoin; citizens create the money based on whether or not it is profitable. Far different from the government deciding on when the money is too valuable and more must be created. No goverment spending, no liquidity traps, currency may be created more easily based on economic growth factors (this is in my most recent post in the thread), etc. It fixes a hell of a lot of the problems with a government-backed currency without having to fall back to the problems of a fixed supply.

[MoonShadow]

I have personally offered advice in the past, including but not limited to the "that won't work" type.  A polite refusal to consider is still a rejection of opinion, so my point stands.