Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution

[smooth]

Actually I believe that is the core meaning of Coase's theorem: valuable assets will end up being owned by savvy folks and the only thing separating them are the transaction costs.

Not necessarily savvy folks, but the folks who value the asset the most. Regardless of the initial distribution.

Total costs are minimized if process of initial distribution is efficient, and thus such coins should outcompete equivalent coins with added sunk costs in distribution. Perhaps this bitcoin spin-off idea will do that. We'll see.

[Adrian-x]

So the initial distribution does not really matter much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

My comment concerning the initial distribution was addressing the perceived unfairness of the distribution; why should we award nakamotos and other btc moguls with mountains of altcoins?

So I tried to say that wouldn't matter since that initlal distribution would quickly be replaced by another distribution that would reflect the value of the altcoin, as indifferent holders would dump their coins and interested parties would pick them up again dirt cheap. The price would then adjust to the demand.

Actually I believe that is the core meaning of Coase's theorem: valuable assets will end up being owned by savvy folks and the only thing separating them are the transaction costs.

Still using this concept of Spin-offs for distribution, if you believe Nakamoto or other holders who haven’t moved there 10,000’s of coins since 2010 shouldn’t get any, you can create a rule in a Spin-off alt  to distribute to all unspent outputs that have a chain link between block X and Block Y and Mr. Nakamoto, and anyone with a balance of 10,000 Bitcoin that has been horded from before say 2010 won’t get any of the new alt coin.  What will happen is the market will decide if this is an effective strategy.

[xDan]

Hurry up and do a spin-off for some coin, I *really* want to see what the market decides. It will be interesting!  

[go1111111]

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

[smooth]

Still using this concept of Spin-offs for distribution, if you believe Nakamoto or other holders who haven’t moved there 10,000’s of coins since 2010 shouldn’t get any

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

About the only definition of "fairness" that excludes early bitcoin developers and adopters is the one where something is made fair by you getting more and others getting less. Come to think of it, that's probably is a pretty good working definition of what people really mean by "fairness" most of the time. I don't see it as an objectively useful concept.

[Peter R]

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link.  Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored.  As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved. 

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

[smooth]

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link.  Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored.  As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.  

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

[Adrian-x]

Still using this concept of Spin-offs for distribution, if you believe Nakamoto or other holders who haven’t moved there 10,000’s of coins since 2010 shouldn’t get any

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

About the only definition of "fairness" that excludes early bitcoin developers and adopters is the one where something is made fair by you getting more and others getting less. Come to think of it, that's probably is a pretty good working definition of what people really mean by "fairness" most of the time. I don't see it as an objectively useful concept.

My comments was directed at YarkoL, but yes I agree with you but I wouldn't go so far as to call it criminality insane. If that's the reason people are not adopting crypto coins I'd be happy to make the compromise. SN could always sell a few Bitcoin and buy some.

[cypherdoc]

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link.  Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored.  As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.  

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

you're exactly right.

the only way to do the distribution is to adhere to Peter's proposal of distributing the altclone in proportion to the Bitcoin blockchain on an agreed upon date in the future.  one of the main goals of this brilliant strategy is to make the entire Bitcoin community comfortable with the project by only having to focus on the potential innovation of the altclone.  and that includes Satoshi. to presume he's dead or lost all his keys is stupid.  to presume he'll dominate every market is incorrect.  he'll just have the same % of what we all have already.

we want maximum support of the Bitcoin community based on the distribution of the current blockchain.  if for say, Peter decided to take half of Satoshi's portion as a bounty for his efforts that would immediately introduce an unhappy response from some Bitcoiners who would then not support the whole concept by calling it unfair.  we want all Bitcoiners to relax and fully support the altclone and not feel threatened by it taking over.  to Peter's credit, he ignored a suggestion in my gold thread about him doing just that; taking half for himself as some kind of payment.

let's hope he adheres to that.

[opticalcarrier]

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link.  Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored.  As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved. 

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

Not the same scenario as btc and an alt

Your scenario would be equivalent to an alt completely replacing btc

[opticalcarrier]

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link.  Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored.  As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.  

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

you're exactly right.

the only way to do the distribution is to adhere to Peter's proposal of distributing the altclone in proportion to the Bitcoin blockchain on an agreed upon date in the future.  one of the main goals of this brilliant strategy is to make the entire Bitcoin community comfortable with the project by only having to focus on the potential innovation of the altclone.  and that includes Satoshi. to presume he's dead or lost all his keys is stupid.  to presume he'll dominate every market is incorrect.  he'll just have the same % of what we all have already.

we want maximum support of the Bitcoin community based on the distribution of the current blockchain.  if for say, Peter decided to take half of Satoshi's portion as a bounty for his efforts that would immediately introduce an unhappy response from some Bitcoiners who would then not support the whole concept by calling it unfair.  we want all Bitcoiners to relax and fully support the altclone and not feel threatened by it taking over.  to Peter's credit, he ignored a suggestion in my gold thread about him doing just that; taking half for himself as some kind of payment.

let's hope he adheres to that.

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions.  Which one will  be successful

[cypherdoc]

in case no one noticed, i just came up with a better name for these things than Spin-offs:  Altclones vs. Altcoins.

the coming war.

[cypherdoc]

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions.  Which one will  be successful

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space.  and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation.  he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

[Ix]

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space.  and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation.  he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

So your argument is because Bitcoin has powerful actors that have far more power over the currency than the fiat wealthy elite, we should bow down like the good peasants we are? Boy, this is looking better all the time.

[opticalcarrier]

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions.  Which one will  be successful

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space.  and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation.  he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

Satoshi was given no stake in any existing alt, and hes not crashed the value of bitcoin because of this fact.  Why would he crash it from any other distro method to an altcoin?  Especially if you assume the clone in question is just some vanilla no-frills clonecoin.  Why would he crash BTC then, for some other shitcoin?  Now what if it was an altcoin with new codebase and lots of features?  The new coin is superior anyways.  He crashes BTC, then the new coin takes over, was going to happen anyways. This possibility of a satoshi crash highlights a very big vulnerability in BTC in the first place.

Satoshi could become some James Bond -esque supervillian with plans on destroying the worlds economy by crashing BTC.

If you cantt do something in a decentralized currency w/o fear of 1 person crashing something like so, then its both not very secure and not a good idea in the first place (meaning BTC is not a good idea in the first place, not the altcoin or its distro method).

EditToAdd: Yeah, thats a NXT address in my signature.  Even so, counterparty has the best distro method.  It even helped out BTC holders by deflating the currency.

[cypherdoc]

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space.  and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation.  he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

So your argument is because Bitcoin has powerful actors that have far more power over the currency than the fiat wealthy elite, we should bow down like the good peasants we are? Boy, this is looking better all the time.

no, the argument is that it's the fair thing to do given this whole concept.  you just chose to ignore everything else i wrote in the preceding post and just focused on the possible consequences.

[opticalcarrier]

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair".  a world with money will never be "fair".  Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin.  face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it.  You are forced to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC.  This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

[cypherdoc]

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair".  a world with money will never be "fair".  Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin.  face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it.  You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC.  This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins.  he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining.  you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009.  not his fault.

you're missing the whole point of this proposal.  no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's.

[opticalcarrier]

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair".  a world with money will never be "fair".  Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin.  face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it.  You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC.  This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins.  he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining.  you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009.  not his fault.

you're missing the whole point of this proposal.  no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's.

thats a strawman.  yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins.  doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency.  you seem to be hung on a "people keep saying its not fair" thing by your 2009 phrase.

but I do miss the point of your last 2 sentences there.  no one ever said anything about stealing anyones coins.

or are you saying that if someone did a distro method but left out satoshis public addresses that this would be "stealing" SN's altcoins?  surely not...

[cypherdoc]

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair".  a world with money will never be "fair".  Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin.  face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it.  You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC.  This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins.  he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining.  you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009.  not his fault.

you're missing the whole point of this proposal.  no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's.

thats a strawman.  yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins.  doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency.  you seem to be hung on a "people keep saying its not fair" thing by your 2009 phrase.

but I do miss the point of your last 2 sentences there.  no one ever said anything about stealing anyones coins.

or are you saying that if someone did a distro method but left out satoshis public addresses that this would be "stealing" SN's altcoins?  surely not...

let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain.  

then Satoshi shows up publicly and says, "hey, you guys stole my fair share of the altclones."  would you say he is right or wrong?  what would you say if we did that to your claim?