Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

This is VERY interesting.
But I don't think:

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  

Is necessarily true. Value can comme from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new version etherium 2, 3 ,etc.

Yes, that's what I mean.  Any new value is in the code created by the devs.  And this can just be gobbled up by the blockchain-based version of the same technology.  

The work done by the devs apply to both Ethereum and æthereum.  The only difference between the two coins is the initial coin distributions.  The question is which coin would win?  The coin with the more efficient distribution and larger potential user base, or the coin that costs money to purchase, has less users, and very likely has an initial distribution highly favouring the developers?

[1713453754]

1713453754

[1713453754]

1713453754

[1713453754]

1713453754

[thoughtfan]

This is VERY interesting.
But I don't think:

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  

Is necessarily true. Value can comme from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new version etherium 2, 3 ,etc.

Yes, that's what I mean.  Any new value is in the code created by the devs.  And this can just be gobbled up by the blockchain-based version of the same technology.  

The work done by the devs apply to both Ethereum and æthereum.  The only difference between the two coins is the initial coin distributions.  The question is which coin would win?  The coin with the more efficient distribution and larger potential user base, or the coin that costs money to purchase, has less users, and very likely has an initial distribution highly favouring the developers?

If this were to succeed why what incentive would the original devs have in releasing v. 2, 3 etc?  If by making the bitcoin blockchain version available to all bitcoin holders (which I suspect comprise 90% + of those interested in Ethereum) and hardly anyone buys the original, their business model has failed and there is nothing and no prospect of anything from which they can pay themselves to continue with development.

[Peter R]

This is VERY interesting.
But I don't think:

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  

Is necessarily true. Value can comme from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new version etherium 2, 3 ,etc.

Yes, that's what I mean.  Any new value is in the code created by the devs.  And this can just be gobbled up by the blockchain-based version of the same technology.  

The work done by the devs apply to both Ethereum and æthereum.  The only difference between the two coins is the initial coin distributions.  The question is which coin would win?  The coin with the more efficient distribution and larger potential user base, or the coin that costs money to purchase, has less users, and very likely has an initial distribution highly favouring the developers?

If this were to succeed why what incentive would the original devs have in releasing v. 2, 3 etc?  If by making the bitcoin blockchain version available to all bitcoin holders (which I suspect comprise 90% + of those interested in Ethereum) and hardly anyone buys the original, their business model has failed and there is nothing and no prospect of anything from which they can pay themselves to continue with development.

I agree that it would be difficult to "pump and dump" using this method, but if you actually have a real innovation that was useful and worked hard to move it forward, you would be highly rewarded.  

Remember, all bitcoin users can claim an amount of æther in proportion to their bitcoin they held at the time of "nucleus formation."  When the coin is released to the wild, I'd expect the æther market cap to trade at a value of perhaps 0.1% of the bitcoin market cap (many people will just dump this "free" money).  

If you really believe in æthereum, you would purchase these coins since you believe them to be highly discounted.  You would continue development and if the community agrees that what you've done is important, then the market cap of æthereum will slowly increase.  You will be rewarded because you have a large holding that you purchased at fair market value based on your insight into what is important in a cryptocurrency.  

What would I do as a user?  I'd probably just hold my æther.  It didn't cost me anything, so I don't really care if it collapses, but it is worth holding just as a hedge.  I think many people would just decide to hold.  


EDIT:

...hardly anyone buys the original, their business model has failed and there is nothing and no prospect of anything from which they can pay themselves to continue with development.

The original business model only fails to the extent that the operation was a pump and dump, I believe.  If there is real innovation, then I think it is their best interest (and the community's best interest) to distribute coins as per the unspent bitcoin outputs at an agreed-upon time.  If they are confident in their innovations, they'll have plenty of time to collect coins for cheap as they push forward with innovation.

[cypherdoc]

This is VERY interesting.
But I don't think:

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  

Is necessarily true. Value can comme from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new version etherium 2, 3 ,etc.

Yes, that's what I mean.  Any new value is in the code created by the devs.  And this can just be gobbled up by the blockchain-based version of the same technology.  

The work done by the devs apply to both Ethereum and æthereum.  The only difference between the two coins is the initial coin distributions.  The question is which coin would win?  The coin with the more efficient distribution and larger potential user base, or the coin that costs money to purchase, has less users, and very likely has an initial distribution highly favouring the developers?

If this were to succeed why what incentive would the original devs have in releasing v. 2, 3 etc?  If by making the bitcoin blockchain version available to all bitcoin holders (which I suspect comprise 90% + of those interested in Ethereum) and hardly anyone buys the original, their business model has failed and there is nothing and no prospect of anything from which they can pay themselves to continue with development.

most likely 90%+ of the Ethereum devs own Bitcoin.

if Ethereum does indeed bring added value to Bitcoin as a bolt on, as proposed by Peter, then the value of Bitcoin itself should rise thus incentivizing the Ethereum devs to continue improving their bolt on code.  this should be obvious if lots of ppl start using the Ethereum bolt on to build financial products as is originally proposed.

the only concern i would have is how to integrate the mining of both platforms.  they are seemingly quite different.  if Bitcoin miners could somehow merge mine ethers then it might work.

edit: maybe i misunderstood Peter's proposal.  do you foresee this as a totally separate platform?

[Peter R]

æthereum: a turing-complete cryptocurrency with initial coin distribution based on the bitcoin blockchain

FAQs:

1.  What is æthereum?

æthereum is a Turing-complete cryptocurrency where the initial distribution of coins is based on the unspent bitcoin outputs on an agreed-upon day in the future (these unspent outputs are known as "the nucleus").  

2.  This sounds like Ethereum.  Is it the same thing?

No, æthereum is unique.  

3.  In what ways is æthereum the same as Ethereum?

æthereum is functionally equivalent to Ethereum.  They are both based on the same source code.  

4.  In what ways is æthereum different?

The initial distribution of coins in æthereum is different.  If you are a bitcoin user, you can use your bitcoin private keys to claim an amount of æther exactly equal to the % of the bitcoin market cap you owned at the time of nucleus creation.  This claiming process is trustless and decentralized and doesn't cost you anything.  

5.  But I have to buy ether during the IPO!  Why are you guys giving æther away for free if it is basically the same thing?

The most difficult part of launching a cryptocurrency is attracting a user base.  Because you own bitcoins, you've demonstrated that you are an advocate for its success.  æthereum can only become successful with the support of the community, and since it costs nothing to "give away æther," doing so both helps our coin and helps the cryptocurrency community.  

It has taken us 5 years, 3 crashes, and $600,000,000 of unrecoverable mining costs to efficiently distribute bitcoins across the user base.  Rather than spending another 5 years and countless crashes, we can jump-start æthereum by beginning at day 0 with the same distribution of coins.  

6.  Are you keeping any æther for yourself?  Is there a premine?

No.  The amount of æther is exactly equal to the unspent bitcoin outputs during nucleus creation.  

7.  Then how are you going to reward yourself for your development work?

We believe that many current bitcoin holders will see their æther as "free money" and sell it for a low price.  Since we believe in the long-term prospects of this technology, we intend to buy these coins for cheap.  We will then continue to develop æthereum and if we are successful our coins will increase in value.  

8.  Why would anyone buy ether if they can get æther for free?

We cannot answer that question.  People must make the decision they feel is right for them.  Some people may feel that the distribution of wealth encoded in the bitcoin blockchain is somehow unfair.  Such people may wish to purchase ether if they feel the IPO process results in a more efficient distribution of wealth.  

[Peter R]

edit: maybe i misunderstood Peter's proposal.  do you foresee this as a totally separate platform?

I think it would need to be a totally separate platform.  It would compete directly with Ethereum and use nearly their exact source code, the only difference would be the initial distribution of coins.  

Basically, we telegraph to the community that all the unspent outputs at Block XXXXX (sometime in the future) become the nucleus for æthereum.  Any bitcoin user who had a private key for unspent outputs in Block XXXXX just has to sign an æther address with that key and broadcast it to the æthereum network to claim their coins.  There is no rush to do this either.  If you do nothing, you can always claim your æther at a later date.  

Personally, I think bitcoin has many untapped features (colored coins, smart contracts, etc) that we need to explore, and that Turing-completness will result in more problems than solutions.  After reading Daniel's article on the coming demise of alt coins and Vitalik Buterin's comment that "bitcoin is not fair because he didn't know about it in 2009,"  I agree that the alt-coin nonsense has gone too far.  My proposal is basically a way to "experiment with Turing Completeness" without people having to stress about "missing out" or risking more capital in another "AuroraCoin."  I think alt-coins are important, but I think the "get rick quick attitude" associated with them is beginning to change.  People are starting to see that what is important in bitcoin is its market cap, liquidity, and most importantly the distribution of coins that the blockchain represents.  

[Carlton Banks]

It's possible you're not properly distinguishing between alt-coins and what could be classified better as bitcoin blockchain forks. Maybe the design differences are mostly not very inspired, but some may have features that make them incompatible with the bitcoin keypair specification. The argument for alt-clones breaks down for a coin like that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of alts (have never held, nor mined, any alts). But if an alt came along that solved the bitcoin pseudonymity issue, and still had the flexibility and running costs of bitcoin or better, I'd seriously consider changing allegiance to that.

[Peter R]

It's possible you're not properly distinguishing between alt-coins and what could be classified better as bitcoin blockchain forks. Maybe the design differences are mostly not very inspired, but some may have features that make them incompatible with the bitcoin keypair specification. The argument for alt-clones breaks down for a coin like that.

Your bitcoin key-pair is used exactly once to claim your æther.  After the æther is claimed, the functionality is identical to Ethereum and you'd use ethereum key pairs from that point onwards.  This is the only additional piece of code one would need to write: basically a transmission from bitcoin space to æther space.  

I believe my proposal works for any possible alt coin.  My proposal is simply a way to create a distribution of wealth equal to that of bitcoin in any new alt coin.

[bitcoinsrus]

It's possible you're not properly distinguishing between alt-coins and what could be classified better as bitcoin blockchain forks. Maybe the design differences are mostly not very inspired, but some may have features that make them incompatible with the bitcoin keypair specification. The argument for alt-clones breaks down for a coin like that.

Your bitcoin key-pair is used exactly once to claim your æther.  After the æther is claimed, the functionality is identical to Ethereum and you'd use ethereum key pairs from that point onwards.  This is the only additional piece of code one would need to write: basically a transmission from bitcoin space to æther space.  

I believe my proposal works for any possible alt coin.  

You or someone should do this, sounds like a great project.

[Peter R]

You or someone should do this, sounds like a great project.

The next step I think would be to create a thread in the alt-coin section and reference it in bitcoin discussion, speculation, and reddit.  This would get people thinking.  

Then a bit later you clone the Ethereum website, explaining your proposed changes.  The cryptocurrency market suddenly realizes that this is a credible threat.  The Ethereum IPO is not taken as seriously as it otherwise would, and people continue to shift away from viewing alt-coins as get-rich-quick schemes, and onto viewing them as experimental platforms needed for the good of the community as a whole.  

If this catches on, new alt coins will need to use the current unspent bitcoin outputs to have a hope of success (otherwise they'll be killed by a clone).  This means that people can just invest in bitcoin, and be confident that they will be piggybacked on new important innovations.      

EDIT: And like Adrian-X said, this "incentivises holding ones coins as opposed to leaving them in an exchange, or an EFT."

[miscreanity]

I don't think the same games can be played as they are with PMs. Comex gold derivatives take advantage of the difficulty and expense of opting for physical delivery of gold contracts. There is no case to be made for the situation being the same for Bitcoin, and so if the Wall Street exchanges refuse or stall withdrawals, then they'll get tarred with the Gox moniker.

The difficulty and expense of understanding and securing bitcoins can be likewise exploited. Heartbleed is a perfect example of a fear trigger for many people.

Not to say that this won't happen, but I think the problems with Bitcoinica, Mt. Gox and Vicurex will be way too fresh in people's minds to permit recklessly large deposits on an exchange run in Wall Street (of all places, at this point in the history of that institution's reputation). Watch closely the language that gets used to describe their processes, if "withdrawal", "deposit" and "balance" are passed over for some other euphemisms, tread carefully, and deride loudly if necessary.

Agreed, but memories fade quickly when fear and greed are involved. The real issue is the barrier to exit (entry must be as low as possible). As with GLD and SLV there could be redemption restrictions, perhaps when Bitcoin reaches five or six figures. It would be a small number of people able to raise $10mm to redeem 100 XBT at $100k each.

Any exchange that joins in with Second Market's 'hub and spoke' arrangement can expect to see some very guarded use of their deposit facilities. Sounds like a situation where mutual finger-pointing will replace meaningful responsibility if there was ever an issue.

Yes, same as gold. Bitcoin then becomes an ideal tool for greater control rather than liberation. That isn't to say I think this is certain, as there's plenty more development to play out -- I just think Bitcoin is being infiltrated and usurped in potentially irreparable ways.

Also am not expecting it to be the price determiner any time soon.

Of course, funds must flow in before flowing out (read: fleeced).

[cypherdoc]

You or someone should do this, sounds like a great project.

The next step I think would be to create a thread in the alt-coin section and reference it in bitcoin discussion, speculation, and reddit.  This would get people thinking.  

Then a bit later you clone the Ethereum website, explaining your proposed changes.  The cryptocurrency market suddenly realizes that this is a credible threat.  The Ethereum IPO is not taken as seriously as it otherwise would, and people continue to shift away from viewing alt-coins as get-rich-quick schemes, and onto viewing them as experimental platforms needed for the good of the community as a whole.  

If this catches on, new alt coins will need to use the current unspent bitcoin outputs to have a hope of success (otherwise they'll be killed by a clone).  This means that people can just invest in bitcoin, and be confident that they will be piggybacked on new important innovations.      

EDIT: And like Adrian-X said, this "incentivises holding ones coins as opposed to leaving them in an exchange, or an EFT."

Peter R,

this is devious as hell, which is to say, i like it.

1.  it gets rid of the #1 objection to participating in Ethereum; no dev fees or premine.  the Bitcoin community could not say no to free æther.
2.  it sets up a head to head competition btwn ethereum and æthereum.  æthereum wins btwn the 2 b/c of the free distribution despite the devs threatening to stay with Ethereum.  but whether either of them lasts long term will depend on it's merits.
3.  it could set off a Bitcoin rally in the weeks before the Big Bang event as investors buy BTC in an attempt to get a larger share of free æther.  longer term, as you say, it could be the altcoin killer.
4.  Ethereum devs could defect to æthereum as their IPO implodes and they see the possibility to pick up cheap æther as it's dumped after the Big Bang.  but only if they truly believe in Ethereum concepts.  you too could pick up cheap æther if you decide to develop the initial æthereum.
5.  it would be a great non threatening to Bitcoin way of testing turing complete.
6.  even if devs stayed with Ethereum and developed versions 2,3, etc. since it's open source, æthereum could just co-opt the code.

i realize nothing i've outlined above is different than what you've already said.  just needed to solidify the concepts in my own mind.  i definitely think it's worth trying.

edit:  the great thing about this is it's cheap to implement with little to no risk.  just some time and some code.  the upside is enormous even if æthereum fails b/c it probably drags down Ethereum with it and other altcoins liberating the funds wasted in that space to be invested into Bitcoin.

[Peter R]

You or someone should do this, sounds like a great project.

The next step I think would be to create a thread in the alt-coin section and reference it in bitcoin discussion, speculation, and reddit.  This would get people thinking.  

Then a bit later you clone the Ethereum website, explaining your proposed changes.  The cryptocurrency market suddenly realizes that this is a credible threat.  The Ethereum IPO is not taken as seriously as it otherwise would, and people continue to shift away from viewing alt-coins as get-rich-quick schemes, and onto viewing them as experimental platforms needed for the good of the community as a whole.  

If this catches on, new alt coins will need to use the current unspent bitcoin outputs to have a hope of success (otherwise they'll be killed by a clone).  This means that people can just invest in bitcoin, and be confident that they will be piggybacked on new important innovations.      

EDIT: And like Adrian-X said, this "incentivises holding ones coins as opposed to leaving them in an exchange, or an EFT."

Peter R,

this is devious as hell, which is to say, i like it.

1.  it gets rid of the #1 objection to participating in Ethereum; no dev fees or premine.  the Bitcoin community could not say no to free æther.
2.  it sets up a head to head competition btwn ethereum and æthereum.  æthereum wins btwn the 2 b/c of the free distribution despite the devs threatening to stay with Ethereum.  but whether either of them lasts long term will depend on it's merits.
3.  it could set off a Bitcoin rally in the weeks before the Big Bang event as investors buy BTC in an attempt to get a larger share of free æther.  longer term, as you say, it could be the altcoin killer.
4.  Ethereum devs could defect to æthereum as their IPO implodes and they see the possibility to pick up cheap æther as it's dumped after the Big Bang.  but only if they truly believe in Ethereum concepts.  you too could pick up cheap æther if you decide to develop the initial æthereum.
5.  it would be a great non threatening to Bitcoin way of testing turing complete.
6.  even if devs stayed with Ethereum and developed versions 2,3, etc. since it's open source, æthereum could just co-opt the code.

i realize nothing i've outlined above is different than what you've already said.  just needed to solidify the concepts in my own mind.  i definitely think it's worth trying.

edit:  the great thing about this is it's cheap to implement with little to no risk.  just some time and some code.  the upside is enormous even if æthereum fails b/c it probably drags down Ethereum with it and other altcoins liberating the funds wasted in that space to be invested into Bitcoin.

I think Vitalik just shit his pants. :-)  Just watch him say that æthereum is not fair.

Yes.  I think we've accomplished something here 

[damnek]

You or someone should do this, sounds like a great project.

The next step I think would be to create a thread in the alt-coin section and reference it in bitcoin discussion, speculation, and reddit.  This would get people thinking. 

Then a bit later you clone the Ethereum website, explaining your proposed changes.  The cryptocurrency market suddenly realizes that this is a credible threat.  The Ethereum IPO is not taken as seriously as it otherwise would, and people continue to shift away from viewing alt-coins as get-rich-quick schemes, and onto viewing them as experimental platforms needed for the good of the community as a whole. 

If this catches on, new alt coins will need to use the current unspent bitcoin outputs to have a hope of success (otherwise they'll be killed by a clone).  This means that people can just invest in bitcoin, and be confident that they will be piggybacked on new important innovations.     

EDIT: And like Adrian-X said, this "incentivises holding ones coins as opposed to leaving them in an exchange, or an EFT."

Peter R,

this is devious as hell, which is to say, i like it.

1.  it gets rid of the #1 objection to participating in Ethereum; no dev fees or premine.  the Bitcoin community could not say no to free æther.
2.  it sets up a head to head competition btwn ethereum and æthereum.  æthereum wins btwn the 2 b/c of the free distribution despite the devs threatening to stay with Ethereum.  but whether either of them lasts long term will depend on it's merits.
3.  it could set off a Bitcoin rally in the weeks before the Big Bang event as investors buy BTC in an attempt to get a larger share of free æther.  longer term, as you say, it could be the altcoin killer.
4.  Ethereum devs could defect to æthereum as their IPO implodes and they see the possibility to pick up cheap æther as it's dumped after the Big Bang.  but only if they truly believe in Ethereum concepts.  you too could pick up cheap æther if you decide to develop the initial æthereum.
5.  it would be a great non threatening to Bitcoin way of testing turing complete.
6.  even if devs stayed with Ethereum and developed versions 2,3, etc. since it's open source, æthereum could just co-opt the code.

i realize nothing i've outlined above is different than what you've already said.  just needed to solidify the concepts in my own mind.  i definitely think it's worth trying.

edit:  the great thing about this is it's cheap to implement with little to no risk.  just some time and some code.  the upside is enormous even if æthereum fails b/c it probably drags down Ethereum with it and other altcoins liberating the funds wasted in that space to be invested into Bitcoin.

I think Vitalik just shit his pants. :-)  Just watch him say that æthereum is not fair.

Yes.  I think we've accomplished something here 

As a side-effect, some people will probably start pulling their bitcoins out of exchanges to make sure that their share is recognized by æthereum, which might expose some fractional reserves.

edit: wording

[Peter R]

I agree we should move forward with the æthereum project.  It will not be very much work, and it could have a positive effect on the community's perception of alt-coins: alt-coins are for experimenting with new concepts that are too risky to implement in bitcoin.  To achieve community support they should use a distribution equal to the unspent outputs near the time of launch.  Developers and believers can purchase additional coins for a low price after launch (as many people will be dumping these "free" coins).  

Here's my plan:

1.  Tomorrow evening I will post a RFC (request for comment) in the alt-coin section describing the idea behind  æthereum.  It will be essentially this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg6133219#msg6133219 so please let me know if you think anything should be added or changed.  

2.  I will also write a post in Bitcoin Discussion about the general concept behind using the unspent outputs in bitcoin's blockchain as a distribution mechanism for alt-coins in general, and link to the æthereum RFC.  I will discuss how this places emphasis on experimentation as opposed to getting rich quick.  I will cite Daniels paper, the idea that the bitcoin blockchain represents an efficient coin distribution due to its many crashes and rallies, and I will describe the importance of a strong user base in the success of a cryptocurrency.  

3.  A few days later, a Reddit user may submit a link to the æthereum idea, and it will get upvoted enough to make it to the first page of r/bitcoin.  I think it will be generally well-received, as the idea that bitcoin holders can piggyback on new but risky innovations like this will be a welcome change.  However, many people will doubt that æthereum is actually serious.  But this is what we want…

4.  About a week or two later, the æthereum website should launch.  This sounds like a lot of work, but it can be extremely simple I think.  Basically, it can just co-opt the Ethereum website design, and the only information it needs to contain is the information in the RFC (updated with the best ideas from the community).  This will get more attention and discussion here and on Reddit.  By this time it will seem like a credible threat and people will question whether they should pay real bitcoin for ether when they can get æther for free.  

5.  After this, it is just a matter of modifying the Ethereum code slightly to allow people to claim their æther by signing an æther public key (or whatever the Ethereum equivalent is) with their bitcoin private key.  This part will likely be the most work, but we may have lots of help by then    

[kjj]

Is there some other thread where this inane prattling about altcoins can go to?  This thread is for inane prattling about gold and bitcoin. 

[molecular]

This is VERY interesting.
But I don't think:

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  

Is necessarily true. Value can come from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new versions: Etherium 2, 3 ,etc.

I actually think the most important aspect that brings value to a coin is its users. Of course also the developers and the code, but the usage of the coin is what makes it valuable.

[molecular]

The NXT guys effectively prevented clone-takeover by releasing binaries first and only older versions of source-code. What is æthereum going to do to prevent such counter-attack?

[Peter R]

Is there some other thread where this inane prattling about altcoins can go to?  This thread is for inane prattling about gold and bitcoin. 

Hey, Cyperdoc brought it up LOL.  This is moving to Alt-coins and Bitcoin Discussion tomorrow, as per above. 

[Peter R]

The NXT guys effectively prevented clone-takeover by releasing binaries first and only older versions of source-code. What is æthereum going to do to prevent such counter-attack?

The proof-of-concept Ethereum code is already available.  And æthereum will intentionally be released after Ethereum. Why buy ether when you will be awarded æther a month or so later for free?

I don't think an alt-coin can fight against my proposed defence.  If you never release source code, it's difficult to establish trust and credibility.  If you do release source code, you open yourself up to being eaten by the bitcoin blockchain.  Besides, it is difficult to keep secrets and there will always defectors.  Information wants to be spread.  

My premise is that any alt coin will enjoy greater success if you freely distribute coins as per the unspent outputs in the bitcoin blockchain, when compared to any other distribution method.  If this premise is true, then any promising alt coin can be made more promising by re-releasing it using bitcoin's unspent outputs to determine initial ownership of coins.  

This would be a good thing for the community including innovative alt coin developers I believe.