Handle the 21M Limit

[BCEmporium]

Despite the announced 21 M limit, Bitcoin is limitless. All it can is hold 21 M per block chain, but we can create how many block chains we want.

What this leads to?

Well, for starters to its primarily goal BTC is useless, growing in value so fast it renders a totally useless currency for trading (other than trading BTC themselves). So my believe is that we need more block chains to operate, so we could have:

Universal Bitcoin (the one we already have)
but also:
EuroBitcoin
AmeroBitcoin
AfroBitcoin
AustraloBitcoin
AsianBitcoin

Leaving us with 6 block chains in total. To the very end when this 5 matures we will have 6x21M worthing the same, but as Universal Bitcoin has started first it must hold some value above the remaining 5 at least while there's more UBTC and is harder to generate than any other.

[error]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

[tomcollins]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

Because without creating more block chains, WHO WILL STOP THE DEFLATION!

[BCEmporium]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

The idea would be to give it some sense, some "human readable" sense, instead of having Block Chain 1, Block Chain 2(...), as well as some "limitation" on the accepted or recognized chains.

[FreeMoney]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

The idea would be to give it some sense, some "human readable" sense, instead of having Block Chain 1, Block Chain 2(...), as well as some "limitation" on the accepted or recognized chains.

There already is a limitation on chains I accept: the longest one. period.

[BCEmporium]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

The idea would be to give it some sense, some "human readable" sense, instead of having Block Chain 1, Block Chain 2(...), as well as some "limitation" on the accepted or recognized chains.

There already is a limitation on chains I accept: the longest one. period.

That's OK... taken 99,9999999999(...)% of the planet still accepts none at all, not even that "longest one". The idea of split block chains must be on the table, it allows BTC to be more resistant and more usable, specially this last feature, as BTC has no use whatsoever.
I'd that one 1btc host that after tomorrow I'll not renewal. The reason? The host is ok for 1UD/mo, but suddenly became way too expensive as it tripled its value due to BTC.

So, how do intend to conduct business with such volatility on the currency?

[tomcollins]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

The idea would be to give it some sense, some "human readable" sense, instead of having Block Chain 1, Block Chain 2(...), as well as some "limitation" on the accepted or recognized chains.

There already is a limitation on chains I accept: the longest one. period.

That's OK... taken 99,9999999999(...)% of the planet still accepts none at all, not even that "longest one". The idea of split block chains must be on the table, it allows BTC to be more resistant and more usable, specially this last feature, as BTC has no use whatsoever.
I'd that one 1btc host that after tomorrow I'll not renewal. The reason? The host is ok for 1UD/mo, but suddenly became way too expensive as it tripled its value due to BTC.

So, how do intend to conduct business with such volatility on the currency?

Yes, the currency is volatile.  But how does making 6 more out of them (making them smaller and even more volatile) solve the problem?

[markm]

There are already several distinct blockchains based on the Bitcoin software, I have test/demo IRCbots running that interface to several of them.

The CDN (Canadian Digital Notes) one is looking particularly interesting to me lately not just because I am in Canada but also because of the relative price-stability.

Mainline Bitcoin is looking a bit like a zero-reserve-banking system in some ways, to whatever extent it might be true that a run on the bank (everyone trying to sell all their bitcoins) might degrade the price.

I don't actually expect all the miners to just want to sell, with none of them being willing to actually "back" the coins they "mint" by offering to "buy them back" with goods services or other currencies, but the CDN plan of only "issuing" CDN coins the "issuers" (miners, minters) have CAD in the bank to "back" them with certainly has some appeal, as does the idea that their coins might thus keep a more stable price than mainline Bitcoins have. (The thinking behind that idea is that at least until uptake outstrips speed of minting, that is, until demand outstrips supply, there seems little reason for them to jump in value much higher than the CAD the people "minting" them are "backing" them with.)

I can set CDN prices based on CAD costs of doing business and expect that CDN will probably not fluctuate much in value compared to CAD thus that my prices should not require constant drastic revision.

The way Bitcoin has been fluctuating it seems to me it is probably much simpler to use a separate type of coin for commerce, buying mainline Bitcoins mostly for savings or investment or speculation rather than for use as spending-money.

Since basically the same software - thus the same interfaces/commands - are used for all the variants, it is easy to switch an application between the various versions/blockchains/currencies and to do exchanges between them. In fact my bots only work with currencies based on bitcoin code, not bothering at all with other protocols/interfaces such as paypal or liberty reserve etc etc.


-MarkM-

[BCEmporium]

Yes, the currency is volatile.  But how does making 6 more out of them (making them smaller and even more volatile) solve the problem?

Running in parallel they manage to stabilize their inter-op prices. So there would be if not BTC, EurBTC, AmerBTC or other to fill the market need for currency, allowing then currencies to stabilize or not so open to speculation floating as a single block chain is.
BTC alone looks like a 3rd world currency, to do business with it you need to be carrying a price tag to change the prices every 5 minutes or so.

Some may think about go to the 4th decimal, to the 8th, however and even if those numbers doesn't affect machine calculation, this is just "the money", "the business" are intended to be operated by humans, not machines, to practical terms it shouldn't go over the second decimal (currency+cents), a currency with lots of units isn't practical.

[cypherdoc]

Why must a block chain be geographically limited?

The idea would be to give it some sense, some "human readable" sense, instead of having Block Chain 1, Block Chain 2(...), as well as some "limitation" on the accepted or recognized chains.

There already is a limitation on chains I accept: the longest one. period.

That's OK... taken 99,9999999999(...)% of the planet still accepts none at all, not even that "longest one". The idea of split block chains must be on the table, it allows BTC to be more resistant and more usable, specially this last feature, as BTC has no use whatsoever.
I'd that one 1btc host that after tomorrow I'll not renewal. The reason? The host is ok for 1UD/mo, but suddenly became way too expensive as it tripled its value due to BTC.

So, how do intend to conduct business with such volatility on the currency?

Yes, the currency is volatile.  But how does making 6 more out of them (making them smaller and even more volatile) solve the problem?

its only volatile now b/c its so new. and the definition of volatility is somewhat suspect b/c its been only going in one direction: up.   this is what we would expect.  as time goes on and the currency production flattens, so will the volatility.  it will eventually find a stable equilibrium.  i think proposals like this are generated mainly from fear of not having gotten in at the ground floor.   i would NOT favor introduction of other block chains.  we have enough to deal with and protect with just one.

[FreeMoney]

Maybe everyone will flock to CDN because it's so stable, hmmm...

It's news to though, how do I get CDN quotes?

[fabianhjr]

That's OK... taken 99,9999999999(...)% of the planet still accepts none at all, not even that "longest one".

There is an estimate of about 6,915,543,000 Person in this world of which it is estimated at least 10K already use Bitcoin.
That means you overdid your nines, by a lot.

[tomcollins]

Yes, the currency is volatile.  But how does making 6 more out of them (making them smaller and even more volatile) solve the problem?

Running in parallel they manage to stabilize their inter-op prices. So there would be if not BTC, EurBTC, AmerBTC or other to fill the market need for currency, allowing then currencies to stabilize or not so open to speculation floating as a single block chain is.
BTC alone looks like a 3rd world currency, to do business with it you need to be carrying a price tag to change the prices every 5 minutes or so.

Some may think about go to the 4th decimal, to the 8th, however and even if those numbers doesn't affect machine calculation, this is just "the money", "the business" are intended to be operated by humans, not machines, to practical terms it shouldn't go over the second decimal (currency+cents), a currency with lots of units isn't practical.

How does that stabalize anything?  Because you say so?

Have you ever seen any other market that is extremely thinly traded?  Volatility like that is common.  Once it grows big enough, then it becomes harder for individual players to move the market. That's how you get stability.  Splitting it up would give the exact opposite problem, needing it to grow 6x as much to get that same level of stability.  You'd have to price things between the different coins (some might be worth more than others).  Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[BCEmporium]

OK... let's wait and see... However mind one important issue: Trading money for money is a burning spiral of losses, as nothing is being generated to back it up nothing is fueling the economy. If BTC doesn't stabilize anytime soon, to allow other sort of business to be conducted with it, it will become a slow-burning ponzi scheme to the end.

CDN sounds a nice concept btw.

[markm]

Maybe everyone will flock to CDN because it's so stable, hmmm...

It's news to though, how do I get CDN quotes?

Just look up CAD.

Resist attempts to drive the price higher. Sure there will be some kind of transaction fee, for example I plan to have my bots use NKL (BitNickels) for such fees, but basically if people try to buy CDN for much more than 1 CAD per CDN it will presumably be because people buying it aren't then spending it. As long as they go ahead and spend it hopefully it will be able to go back out into circulation, allowing the supply to keep up with the demand.

Sure some day, probably in a few years yet, when a large percent of the eventual 21 million or so coins are actually in circulation, it might become time to open the thing up for every tom dick and harry to try to drive down the price by minting them at home, but at that point they will also thereby be driving up the difficulty, making it more expensive to actually mint the things.

-MarkM-

[TiagoTiago]

Where can i learn about the parallel blockchains avaiable out there?

[markm]

Where can i learn about the parallel blockchains avaiable out there?

Join IRC channel #bitcoin-otc on Freenode.

There you should find a bot named NickelBot. It has info obtainable by the IRC command

/msg NickelBot help

Unfortunately I think it currently thinks a BitCoin is worth less than a CDN...

If you learn of others besides those NickelBot already knows about, do tell.

-MarkM-

[tomcollins]

OK... let's wait and see... However mind one important issue: Trading money for money is a burning spiral of losses, as nothing is being generated to back it up nothing is fueling the economy. If BTC doesn't stabilize anytime soon, to allow other sort of business to be conducted with it, it will become a slow-burning ponzi scheme to the end.

CDN sounds a nice concept btw.

Stabilizing is not the problem.  We live in the internet age.  We can price things every second.  For the large scale user, fees are negligible, especially compared to PayPal and credit cards.  Trading can be automated to make sure you aren't vulnerable to swings.

The only way we stabilize is if the exchange market grows tremendously.  Right now there is <20k BTC for sale on the exchange.  Anyone with medium pockets can buy them all up at any time, doubling the price.  Anyone with a decent amount of bitcoins could sell them and would lower the price tremendously.  We just need a bigger market.  It will happen with time (or it won't).

[BCEmporium]

So, tom, with 6 parallel block chains you would end up with 5 times more BTC available, with different values between them is true, as they hadn't start at the same time, but will be more able to be up to BTC demand and therefore stabilization. A bit like what you've on the real world with different currencies.
As things develop, people will tend to stick with the most stable block chain for real life trade and use the more trended up as bullion or investment. Eventually some block chains will fall into darkness as happens to some currencies around, such as Indonesian Rupiah.

[tomcollins]

So, tom, with 6 parallel block chains you would end up with 5 times more BTC available, with different values between them is true, as they hadn't start at the same time, but will be more able to be up to BTC demand and therefore stabilization. A bit like what you've on the real world with different currencies.
As things develop, people will tend to stick with the most stable block chain for real life trade and use the more trended up as bullion or investment. Eventually some block chains will fall into darkness as happens to some currencies around, such as Indonesian Rupiah.

Why would they build up more demand?  Having more world currencies makes more volatility, not more stability.  It's good we have lots of currencies, since that volatility is not a bad thing since people can get out of bad currency and get into good ones.