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

[Adrian-x]

so hold on....

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

Is this the idea?

The big opportunity here is redistribution of the wealth that has been disproportionately manipulated by fractional reserve banking. Many of the Bitcoin wealthy have made Bitcoin a success because they have risked there capital by investing in the idea. Alt coins represent 2 opportunities. 1 innovation. And 2 adoption of crypto coins.

Alt coin success is dependent on Bitcoin success, capital invested in Bitcoin is still at risk, the wealth redistribution many fear in Bitcoin is unsupported as the liquidity in Bitcoin isn't there to support that wealth extension.

With the 350 odd alts how do you now best encourage innovation without undermining the investment already made in Bitcoin, I thinks many alts are more innovative than Bitcoin but one can't realistically invest in them as the innovative ones are copied as soon as they become successful.

The rate of altcoin development is growing exponentially the innovation is at risk because it of it. The overwhelming plan is plan B for the world economy, and if I have to make a few visionaries rich to make crypto succeed in undermining the existing banking system count me in.

[cypherdoc]

why are you starting to be hysterical/rude?  Im responding vehemently?  It not like I called your mother a whore or insulted you in any other fashion.  

who's being hysterical?:

YOUD BE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND to give, of all people, SN, the creator of bitcoin, the ability to wreck havoc in your new cryptocurrency.

look, i don't care that there's a disconnect btwn us b/c to me, you're ignoring all my attempted answers to you.

hence, i'll say it again:  PLEASE, PLEASE start your altclone minus Satoshi.  and Peter will start his.

then, we'll just see how it goes.

sure, peter will do it, because it is a clone of etherium; he wont have any real sweat or hard work in the game.  Ill admit it will be a nice experiment.  But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

and as to SN showing up to complain, did you not see my response:

And given that SN was so concerned with creating such a decentralized structure in the first place, Id believe that if he DID own all that BTC out there, how could he not argue that it is a bad idea for one person to control so much, or either BTC or any altcoin?  that seems to me to sort of an oxymoron.

it should be all about true decentralization and a core that can operate with no trust required.

i think you are making a value judgment here (which we've already agreed has no place here) and cloaking it with FUD as "decreasing risk to the system".

why?  b/c you can't prove:

1.  Satoshi hasn't already destroyed all his private keys or lost his keys.
2.  even if he hasn't, you can't even document how much he owns.
3.  his hoarding has hurt Bitcoin. one could easily argue that it has helped Bitcoin tremendously by keeping those coins off the market and supporting the price as a result.
4.  he doesn't "deserve" them.  he only created an entire new global currency revolution by his lonesome  
5.  he will dump them onto the market irresponsibly.  he's not an idiot.  if he wants to cash out, he will do so slowly sometime in the far future when the liquidity is high and he won't perturb the market so as to maximize his profits.
6  he hasn't already died.

all those things eliminate your concerns.

[cypherdoc]

But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

no, he wouldn't dump his altclones b/c he has the same % of them as he does with Bitcoin.  he's richer, remember?

which nicely dovetails with your argument that ALL human beings are greedy.  which includes Satoshi, i presume?

[Peter R]

I believe the outcries about "fairness" and the outpouring of proposals for new "better" schemes that we've seen in this thread add credibility to my theory. 

As smooth said below, there is only one straightforward way to replace "greenbacks" with "orangebacks"; schemes that propose re-distribution will result in endless battles against other re-distribution schemes and it isn't clear whether any would ever be accepted.  This thread is already evidence of that.  The blockchain, on the other hand, is already perceived as legitimate. 

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.

There's a new f*** word in town and it ain't fuck. 

The blockchain will be preserved.

[cryptohunter]

so hold on....

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

Is this the idea?

please read Peter's Principle in the OP and tell us why the current market-based blockchain distribution is wrong or unfair.

unfair , fair, words each person will attribute different meaning in terms of crypto distribution.

However it is totally obvious that it is MORE fair to distribute new crypto through fair launch POW protocols we can implement now.

How can one even possibly attempt to argue the fact that if you are bitcoin rich now it should entitle you to be alt rich in every single alt released now.  Hehe you would have better hoped this stayed in the BTC section. Here in the alt section the vast majority hold few BTC and lots of alts. You are telling more people here they are going to be ALT poor as well as BTC poor in the future compared to the big BTC holders. That is of course not going to wash.

This is the most stupid thing i ever heard on here yet.

This is an attempt to stamp out anyone else gaining some crypto wealth. The main message here is clear.

If you are not already BTC rich you will remain crypto poor for ever now.  Hmmm how is this unfair?  i wonder?

I don't agree with it, let's find a coin with a less concentrated centre of wealth and model on their block chain.

The only persons that could possibly want this are those that are btc rich. Everyone else would be crazy to go for it.


IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF BTC WE WILL GIVE YOU A LOT OF ALTS IN FUTURE

IF YOU HAVE NO BTC YOU GET NO ALTS IN FUTURE




hehe how could that possibly be seen as unfair. I have no clue perhaps i just see the world in some strange way lol.


Buying coins in a public transparent way would even be way more fair. Sure the BTC whales could afford a lot more but then they are using up their BTC not just getting free advantage just for holding on to it.


POW with a fair protocol launch is still the fairest and best way to distribute coins other than a fully verified personal ID way of doing it with years for people to claim.


This entire thread should have stayed in the BTC section ...even in there they would probably see the folly of it.

A coin will eventually be successful or not depending on it's merits. If a coins community pushes it into the public domain further and harder than any other alt and has services and places to use it then demand will dictate so long as the coin is tech sound it will be the dominant force for that period which those factors remain true.

[Adrian-x]

@cryptohunter

You are not alone in you're view your understand may even be the dominant view.
The spin-off proposal can be used however anyone wants, it's an open idea.

In my view your objections may be valid but this idea is not about directing or redistribution of wealth but about maximizing the innovation in crypto coins.

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter

You are not alone in you're view your understand may even be the dominant view.
The spin-off proposal can be used however anyone wants, it's an open idea.

In my view your objections may be valid but this idea is not about directing or redistribution of wealth but about maximizing the innovation in crypto coins.

Hmmm ? innovation will come through the desire to become number 1 or even to survive in this market. This will suffocate innovation. Everything being open source i think causes some issues with the devs knowing full well all their work can be replicated at the touch of a button. That suffocates new innovation more in my opinion.

I will never support this kind of thing in crypto even if i had 10M BTC it simply is not fair.

Imagine this being suggested in any other market? crazy.

However if everyone wants it for some unknown reason then go ahead with it .... i see a LOT of critics waiting for it though.

Even basing it on LTC would be slightly more fair, a LOT more people had access to mine LTC. Although even that for the recent wave won't be seen as fair, and honesty it probably isn't.

Anyway that is just my personal opinion .... others must decide on what they think is fair. However asking for someone to describe how they feel it is unfair is laughable.... it is quite obviously less fair  for the reasons i have listed. Even if that does not explain or persuade you it is unfair, i have listed ways to distribute that are without doubt...more towards fair.

Nobody is arguing market distribution is not as important or even more important that POW mining. However still there are ways to get more alts into more hands that have paid the same amount that what you are proposing.

[Peter R]

so hold on....

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

Is this the idea?

Based on what I've learned from this thread, I now believe your question contains a logical fallacy and if removed turns your question into a truism.  As ghdp put it:

TL/DR : there are no early adopters. Only people who believed in bitcoin when nobody else did, and somehow managed to move their position from "poor" to "rich". And today they face exactly the same challenge as the "already rich" guys : either "believe" and hold/move to bitcoin or "don't believe" and stay in fiat.

I think if you remove the spurious words from your question, you get the following statement

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

since "BTC-rich" is just another way of saying rich and "alt-coin rich" in an alt with little market cap is largely irrelevant to your wealth. 

This thread contains more discussion on the "I don't want to make early adopters rich" fallacy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=517759.0

[opticalcarrier]

But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

no, he wouldn't dump his altclones b/c he has the same % of them as he does with Bitcoin.  he's richer, remember?

which nicely dovetails with your argument that ALL human beings are greedy.  which includes Satoshi, i presume?

the amount or % of altclones he has is irrelevant.  I say he may dump his altcoin holdings because BTC is his personal triumphant achievement and a novel altcoin (not some dump generic sha256/scrypt pumpndump coin) that begins performing very well would be a threat to BTC.  you even admitted to the fact that he has lots of BTC early on in the discussion when you said that "maybe we shouldnt piss him off" or something like that. then you flip flop.  You have flip flopped here twice on whether or not SN owns tons of BTC.  first you say he does and may dump it all if we piss him off.  then you try to make another argument based on that he probably doesnt and demand that I prove he does.  and then you switch back to saying he does.  You have pretty much lost all credibility for an argument, so unless you can make a stance and stick with it, any further argument on your end has zero merit unless you want to take a stance and stick with it.

i get the impression (but I may be wrong here) that you are looking at the term "altcoin/altclone" as a generic sha256/scrypt derivative that has nothing new to offer and is only designed for pump and dump.  If that is the case (may not be though) then sure,  give SN all he wants of those.  Im not concerned in the least with those.  its the coins that show technical merit that I am interested in.

sure, the OP will do his experiment with aether and it  will be very interesting.  Fortunately ive got quite a bit of liquidity I can move into BTC and participate in these schemes myself.  But like I said, I seriously doubt that a truly innovative altcoin will do it this way.  Counterparty's is the way to go in this regard.  And this is coming from someone that has never even owned any counterparty.

why do you suppose peter has not given any input in on my position?

[smooth]

you have invented a way for bitcoin owners to steal new crypto-technology from the creators

Absurd. The creators give their permission by releasing under an open source license.

There are a number of viable models for funding and/or monetizing open source development, but using a pre-mine to do it is new and largely untested. If it turns out not to be viable, that would not be all that surprising.

Can you read? My point doesn't go away if you only qoute half of my sentences you fucktard.

When you start confusing forking with stealing and theft, how much of that dribble am I supposed to quote? I quoted enough to show how confused you are.

The right to fork (and have your fork adopted by the community if the community should so choose), is a foundational and universally accepted tenet of open source. You really should go learn about it rather than continuing to so vividly demonstrate your ignorance.

[smooth]

I say he may dump his altcoin holdings because BTC is his personal triumphant achievement and a novel altcoin (not some dump generic sha256/scrypt pumpndump coin) that begins performing very well would be a threat to BTC.

Let's let the market decide, okay?

why do you suppose peter has not given any input in on my position?

Because you are free to create your own distribution schemes, and go right ahead and start your own thread discussing them. Peter R has his scheme, which may or may not "work," but the only real way to find out is to try it. Proposing alternate schemes does not help test this one.

[cypherdoc]

But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

no, he wouldn't dump his altclones b/c he has the same % of them as he does with Bitcoin.  he's richer, remember?

which nicely dovetails with your argument that ALL human beings are greedy.  which includes Satoshi, i presume?

the amount or % of altclones he has is irrelevant.  I say he may dump his altcoin holdings because BTC is his personal triumphant achievement and a novel altcoin (not some dump generic sha256/scrypt pumpndump coin) that begins performing very well would be a threat to BTC.  you even admitted to the fact that he has lots of BTC early on in the discussion when you said that "maybe we shouldnt piss him off" or something like that. then you flip flop.  You have flip flopped here twice on whether or not SN owns tons of BTC.  first you say he does and may dump it all if we piss him off.  then you try to make another argument based on that he probably doesnt and demand that I prove he does.  and then you switch back to saying he does.  You have pretty much lost all credibility for an argument, so unless you can make a stance and stick with it, any further argument on your end has zero merit unless you want to take a stance and stick with it.

i get the impression (but I may be wrong here) that you are looking at the term "altcoin/altclone" as a generic sha256/scrypt derivative that has nothing new to offer and is only designed for pump and dump.  If that is the case (may not be though) then sure,  give SN all he wants of those.  Im not concerned in the least with those.  its the coins that show technical merit that I am interested in.

sure, the OP will do his experiment with aether and it  will be very interesting.  Fortunately ive got quite a bit of liquidity I can move into BTC and participate in these schemes myself.  But like I said, I seriously doubt that a truly innovative altcoin will do it this way.  Counterparty's is the way to go in this regard.  And this is coming from someone that has never even owned any counterparty.

why do you suppose peter has not given any input in on my position?

those are just examples i've thrown out which can be mutually inconsistent.  point being, we don't know what he will do or even what he has.  and we shouldn't care.

what's your problem here?  i'll say it for the umpteenth time:  go right ahead and issue your altclone minus Satoshi.  i don't care.  can you hear me?

i just think you'll lose for all the reasons i've tried to tell you.

[opticalcarrier]

why do you think I need someone to do it may way so bad?  You are way off in the weeds.  I dont think that it necessarily NEEDS to be done, which is where youve been all off the whole time.  My point all along is that it would be risky for an innovative altcoin to include satoshis millions. 

but since your debate skills are so weak lets just leave it at this..  when some genius coder releases an innovative crypto and includes satoshis millions, then ill award you a cookie.  and ill bow to that coder cause he will have a huge set of balls between his legs.

thats all im saying, this whole discussion.  that a coder with an innovative crypto that has the possibility to take over BTC may think twice before including satoshis millions.  will satoshi ride the new altcoin's fortune?  or will he dump his holdings of the altcoin so as to allow BTC to reign?  thats all im saying, here, is that there is a hard decision here for someone with a novel new crypto wanting to use the BTC blockchain distrib.  satoshi so far seems to not care about cashing out all his BTC and getting mega rich.  so this lends credence to the thought that he cares more about BTC than fiat.  thus my position that he may crash a new altcoin that threatens BTC.

i have no clue why you seem to think im arguing something else.  and like I keep saying counterparty's was best for BTC anyways.

[gojomo]

I really like the idea of bootstrapping other experiments off the bitcoin endowments.

I'd first considered endowment reuse in the context of a crypto-catastrophe (restarting a new currency, using an old checkpoint of endowments) or coin-civil-war (irreconcilable differences which lead to two long-lived incompatible chains, descending from some common parent). But of course the technique doesn't need to be limited to such crises; it can help other experiments bootstrap with a broad audience of proven cryptocurrency adepts.

Obviously the idea is generalizable to making a distribution that's any scaling, truncation (in time or values), partial-randomization, or other function of Bitcoin endowments, as others have mentioned.

However, I think there's another supercharged variant that's possible, that I haven't seen mentioned yet. It'll seem wacky at first, but give it some thought... it may help cement the spincoin into a certain beneficial relationship with the 'seed coin' (usually Bitcoin).  

The variant:

Rather than picking a magic checkpoint, at which the spincoin distribution (for a single genesis moment) copies the parent seedcoin, issue the spincoin as a continuing, perpetual dividend from seedcoin holdings across all time, including the past, and the future (as it arrives).  

As an example, let's call our theoretical spincoin Sumcoin, and the seedcoin Bitcoin.

Imagine that for every block-tick you've held bitcoin-satoshis, you would be entitled to an equal number of base sumcoin-units. You'd redeem them with a specific claim(bitcoin-txo, start-block, end-block) action in the spincoin chain. Did your key(s) control a 10,000 satoshi output for exactly 200 blocks? Sign your spinclaim for that holding period, get 2,000,000 sumcoin-units. (Of course, that same range of holdings can only be spinclaimed once.)

That is, the Sumcoin endowments are the integral of the mother-Bitcoin holdings. If you held Bitcoin in the past but sold it all, you can still claim some Sumcoin (as long as you've retained your keys). That is, the incentivized audience for Sumcoin is everyone who's ever held Bitcoin. And, as long as you continue to hold Bitcoin, you get a stream of Sumcoin, claimable on demand.

Of course, there's far more Sumcoin numerically, and indeed its total issuance is growing by the size of the total Bitcoin endowment every block. But that's all just a giant factor larger than Bitcoin, and completely constant/predictable in both its magnitude and to which actors it accrues.

Once all Bitcoin is issued, Sumcoin's inflation is similar to Dogecoin, a small constant amount each period. That is, unlike inflating fiat monies, it doesn't use unpredictability, or closeness to the monetary-authority, to achieve surprise redistribution.

If there is a benefit to a permanently-but-predictably inflating currency, as many have conjectured, Sumcoin might best capture that benefit in a manner complementary to Bitcoin – because it's a linked funhouse-mirror-twin of Bitcoin. (That is, it might fill this niche better than coins with demurriage or other forms of permanent inflation, and other arbitrary initial distributions.)

In the large, the relationship could fortify Bitcoin's role as the permanent, undilutable equity shares of the cryptoeconomy, with frothy Sumcoin used for lower-value/higher-velocity consumptive transactions.

[cryptohunter]

so hold on....

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

Is this the idea?

Based on what I've learned from this thread, I now believe your question contains a logical fallacy and if removed turns your question into a truism.  As ghdp put it:

TL/DR : there are no early adopters. Only people who believed in bitcoin when nobody else did, and somehow managed to move their position from "poor" to "rich". And today they face exactly the same challenge as the "already rich" guys : either "believe" and hold/move to bitcoin or "don't believe" and stay in fiat.

I think if you remove the spurious words from your question, you get the following statement

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

since "BTC-rich" is just another way of saying rich and "alt-coin rich" in an alt with little market cap is largely irrelevant to your wealth. 

This thread contains more discussion on the "I don't want to make early adopters rich" fallacy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=517759.0

Sorry but i do not agree.

This is not about letting early adopters of BTC remain BTC rich. That's fine they were there early they took the opportunity they are now rich.

However alts are a NEW separate opportunity. The BTC whales are no more early adopters of alts than anyone else. They therefore do not automatically deserve to have alt coins " reserved for them" for doing nothing more than anyone else. That very notion trying to spin this as the fairest way for everyone is not going to wash with most people.

Your statement those that are BTC rich are rich....yes great that's fine. Has no bearing on what i was saying.

So let me just get a yes or no answer...

Are you saying if you have 10% of all BTC you should have 10% of the new alt chain?  If you have 0 BTC you will get 0 altcoins?  yes or no?

If yes..

It will be very hard to try and argue that it is more fair than the other 2 methods of distribution i mentioned before.

Also these worthless alts?? LTC, Ripple? doge? they do not influence you wealth?

Nobody that is not BTC rich will consider going for new alts whose distribution is mapped according to the btc chain.

This would only be seen as a good idea on the BTC forum.

I'm not saying that it's not a good idea for crypto but it certainly isn't the fairest way of distributing alts.

[cypherdoc]

from Adam Back on Reddit to me:



cypherdoc:  this is an example of an elegant, simple economic solution to the altcoin problem and a way to weed out (in?) true innovation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
     
i'd be interested to hear your opinions on it.

Adam:  yeah that is fiendishly clever. Its still an alt however, with a sort of soft-premine (disguised premine) by just giving them to everyene then buying them early for real money at low prices.

I still think alts are fragmentary and its better to build on network effect.

[Brangdon]

which nicely dovetails with your argument that ALL human beings are greedy.  which includes Satoshi, i presume?

We shouldn't rely on personality. For all we know, Satoshi died months ago, and his keys just now fell into the hands of his heirs, who have different personalities and goals. Or maybe a thief broke into his home and stole his paper wallet. Satoshi's past behaviour may not be a good predictor of what a new owner will do in future.

[Peter R]

why do you suppose peter has not given any input in on my position?

I assume the point you are making that you'd like input on is the following:

But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

Money functions as both a means of exchange and a store of value.  What I think you fail to realize is that these are two seperate things: bitcoin as the network of nodes, miners and associated source code is the "means of exchange," whereas bitcoin as the entries in the unforgeable global ledger known as the blockchain is the "store of value."

The free market will naturally choose the best payment network (means of exchange) run from the most legitimate ledger (store of value)¹.  I expect that for the forseeable future, the market will decide:

     best payment network = bitcoin's network
     most legitimate ledger = bitcoin's blockchain

But now let's perform a thought experiment by considering a future where the community no longer perceives that the bitcoin network is the best payment network.  My intent here is to show that it does not logically follow that the community will abandon the most legitimate ledger at the same time--in fact, the economic majority will strongly favour retaining the same ledger as it is already perceived as legitimate and that is where their wealth and records are stored.  

For our thought experiment, consider the proof-of-stake coin NXT.  Image somehow that NXT slowly demonstrates to the cryptocurrency community that PoS is preferable to PoW².  So how would this play out?

The community will be overflowing with clones and spin-offs, several of them trying to redistribute value from the blockchain ledger in a way that they perceive to be "more fair."  There will be a great deal of confusion and the market cap of most the PoS clone coins will be very small.  

Let's assume that Satoshi is (a) alive, (b) has all his keys, (c) is a rational individual that works for his enlightened self-interest.  What could he do?

And herein lies the other thing I think you fail to realize: Satoshi has more economic power than any of us.  

It is in Satoshi's best interest to get behind one of the spin-offs that follow my principle, because he will retain the same % of wealth and the ledger is already perceived as legitimate by the economic majority.  If a certain spin-off looks like it already has a head start, he can get behind that, or he could simply launch his own.  But at some point, there will be discussion in the community that Spin-off Y based on Block XXXXX is preferable.  

Satoshi puts up a bid-wall at say, 1 : 10,000 and a few people dump to him (perhaps those in favour of deleting Satoshi's coins).  He then moves the bid-wall up to 1 : 1,000 and a few more people dump to him (those who favour deleting Satoshi's coins go "all in.")  The rest of us start to realize the dynamics at play.  Spin-off Y is about to become legitimate.

Now every one who didn't dump has a risk-free way to try an increase their percentage of the pie.  Speculators scramble to purchase coins of Spin-off Y and very quickly Spin-off Y becomes legitimized.  

The only re-distribution of wealth was as follows: those who tried to remove value from Satoshi by dumping the spin-off the community supported would lose wealth.  Those that realized what was happening and purchased spin-offs from those in favor of re-distribution would gain wealth.  And very importantly, the vast majority of the community who remained impartial and did nothing retain the exact same % of wealth.  

Remember, Satoshi has a lot of coins.  If the "stampede" into Spin-off Y doesn't occur at 1 : 1,000, Satoshi can keep moving up the "peg" until it does.  The longer this process takes, the richer Satoshi becomes and the poorer become those who fought the process in favour of re-distribution.    

Also note that just the fact that Satoshi could do this means that he may not even have to.  We will all do it for him.



¹My definition of the terms "best payment network" and "most legitimate ledger" are not subjective or ambiguous.   I am defining the term "best payment network" to mean the one most adopted by the community, and the term "most legitimate ledger" to be the ledger that actually gets used by the economic majority.

²Something I highly doubt will ever happen.

[Adrian-x]

Hmmm ? innovation will come through the desire to become number 1 or even to survive in this market. This will suffocate innovation. Everything being open source i think causes some issues with the devs knowing full well all their work can be replicated at the touch of a button. That suffocates new innovation more in my opinion.

I can agree with your premise in bold, but can't see how this can suffocate innovation. If you try and convince me and I hope you don't try I'll still hold of judgment until a scientific study is conducted in the wild/ market.  


You concern of open source is only viable if you believe in the notion of IP or that information can remain proprietary. In a system where information / knowledge is accumulative and free to those who invest in learning it, duplicating others innovation can be seen as competitive and overall destructive, a spin-off makes that point mute, as it doesn't undermine the former by copying it, it makes the innovation accumulative by supporting it's base.

[cypherdoc]

let us not forget Satoshi's message from the genesis block:

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks."

from that, and his numerous posts, i deduce that Satoshi's main goal is to remove power from the banks.  any cryptocurrency that helps facilitate this would be supported by Satoshi, even if it is an altclone.