Handle the 21M Limit

[CoinOperated]

Back on the time when people buy pizza for 10K, I bough cards for nearby values, I don't bother with it, and BTC flowed without much interruption.
Now... as this one gets to this price, BTC is stuck. Nobody can do business with BTC, it's simply impossible. So I feel the need, as a supporter of an economy of goods, not an economy where "money" is the "good", for a more worthless kind of BTC, one that is usable, and this one ain't.
Hard to understand?

Please clarify - you are saying you want stable BTC prices?  IE a pizza should cost maybe roughly 10 BTC, and in 6 months time it should still be fairly close.  Maybe 9 BTC, maybe 11, but not 0.0001 or 10,000? 

That was my point earlier, if prices change too much too quicly (either up or down) the currency becomes unusable.  Do you like the bimetallic idea? goldBTC and silverBTC?

[tomcollins]

I'm thinking of it as a technically separated, the both block chains are independent, with inter-op by human side. So it will be up to the market to say how many silver you need to get a gold. The most important point is to get them together at the user's eyes, means that the client that handles "goldBTC" must also be able to handle "silverBTC".
Having this secondary currency you get some point of stabilization, maybe however not just yet with silver due to the high demand of gold (so some gold investors may move to silver or diverse their investment wallets by put some silver too), but let's say in 1 or 2 years time it's started the bronze block chain and up to this moment you'll have a tertiary and basically stable currency, as the demand for the "bullion" doesn't quite engage this last chain, at least there's no reason for that to happen.
You can always inter-op them by the market, but those two lesser chains being less interesting to the speculators would become expendable exchange, increasing its velocity, whereas BTC (gold) remains as investment and savings.
Not as simple as the currencies as 100 cents = 1 usd I don't believe it would be possible to determinate 100 silver = 1 gold with the same linearity.

Basically is to move part of the real World to BTC reality, you tend to save an 100USD bill, to expend more easily 1 buck and not even to think much about expending 1 quarter.

As for the "gold rush", I didn't missed it and I wouldn't be investing in hard GPU's - nor do I've them, I'm not a miner -, don't bother. Generated some thousands by CPU back on the beginning, up to late July.

I still don't understand the point.  What problem are you trying to solve?  That someone doesn't want to "break" $100?  What need does this actually fill?  Stabilization?  It does the opposite.  Name something and describe how it actually helps rather than just rambling.

He is trying to increase the money supply because we are experiencing severe deflation.   I completely agree the problem (severe deflation) needs to be addressed or it will threaten bitcoin's long term future.  The idea of a bi-metallic currency is worth exploring.  Traditionally it was set at a ratio of 12:1 or 15:1 silver:gold.  Few people are aware this power was one of the few explicitly enumerated in the US constitution (Article I Sections 8 and 10).  To stick to round numbers, we could start a second chain and fix the ratio at 10:0 silverBTC:goldBTC.  The users console would just see "BTC" unless they asked for a breakdown.  Initially all the miners would rush into silver since the rate of silverBTC would be more than 10x goldBTC.  As all the CPU resources switch over to silverBTC, one day it would drop to just under 10x easier to mine silverBTC, and they would start mining goldBTC again.  That is exactly how it works with bimetallic currencies, and they did it for the same reason: increase the money supply in an orderly way.

But the bi-metallic standards failed.  This is because there always is a natural price between things, and there is a legal price.  If you fix the trade ratio rather than just let it float, then you end up with no one accepting the overvalued metal and everyone wanting the undervalued one.

What's the difference between adding a 10:1 currency and just moving the decimal place over a digit?

[tomcollins]

Back on the time when people buy pizza for 10K, I bough cards for nearby values, I don't bother with it, and BTC flowed without much interruption.
Now... as this one gets to this price, BTC is stuck. Nobody can do business with BTC, it's simply impossible. So I feel the need, as a supporter of an economy of goods, not an economy where "money" is the "good", for a more worthless kind of BTC, one that is usable, and this one ain't.
Hard to understand?

Why is it impossible?  It's certainly possible.  You change your prices.  I wrote code to do this in 15 minutes.  It's super easy.  Once the economy grows large enough, things will stabilize quite a bit.  But it needs to grow to support this.

That's what happens when something moves from being valueless (BTC at the beginning) to somewhat valueable (now).

[BCEmporium]

Yes CoinOperated, I do think that it has to be a way to contain either deflation or inflation. A secondary block chain if connected with the main chain would be less appealing to the current speculators and therefore potentially more stable.
Also the ability for some newcomers to mine would encourage more people to enter into bitcoin, expanding its market.

The whole current trend starts to look after the fate of e-Gold, Pecunix or other "most people didn't even heard about" e-currencies.

I just don't see how to set the x:1 proportion with this one, at least at the beginning.

[BCEmporium]

Back on the time when people buy pizza for 10K, I bough cards for nearby values, I don't bother with it, and BTC flowed without much interruption.
Now... as this one gets to this price, BTC is stuck. Nobody can do business with BTC, it's simply impossible. So I feel the need, as a supporter of an economy of goods, not an economy where "money" is the "good", for a more worthless kind of BTC, one that is usable, and this one ain't.
Hard to understand?

Why is it impossible?  It's certainly possible.  You change your prices.  I wrote code to do this in 15 minutes.  It's super easy.  Once the economy grows large enough, things will stabilize quite a bit.  But it needs to grow to support this.

That's what happens when something moves from being valueless (BTC at the beginning) to somewhat valueable (now).

You can change your prices... is it? How? By setting them up in a fiat currency and a CRON to check BTC last on Mt. Gox every 5 minutes?
Question is: There's no money flow in BTC, without flow all "growth" it represents is illusory. Again: Trading money for money is a process of erosion and self-consuming. Which means in the end BTC will "break" when no more "fresh blood" gets in as in any Ponzi scheme where "the money" and "the good" are one and the same.

[CoinOperated]

Yes CoinOperated, I do think that it has to be a way to contain either deflation or inflation. A secondary block chain if connected with the main chain would be less appealing to the current speculators and therefore potentially more stable.
Also the ability for some newcomers to mine would encourage more people to enter into bitcoin, expanding its market.

The whole current trend starts to look after the fate of e-Gold, Pecunix or other "most people didn't even heard about" e-currencies.

I just don't see how to set the x:1 proportion with this one, at least at the beginning.

There are two ratios to set:
(1) Exchange rate of silverBTC:goldBTC = x:1
(2) number of silverBTC generated per CPU cycle : goldBTC = y:1. 

y will decrease over time naturally, and y:x will fluctuate up and down.  We can choose to make x a fixed value in the user console, and by everybody agreeing to use this version of the user console it would get enforced.  Or we can let x float as tomcollins proposed.

I  am leaning towards BCEmporium's view that letting x float has some technical challenges.  I also think it has many psychological challenges as the ratio can be volatile throughout the day. Who wants to stop making coffee and go and execute trades to lock in a favorible rate after each cup?  The coffee merchant would prefer to do it once at night and trade all their BTC take for the day, or even better once a week.  They could lose a significant amount before they sell it to volatility.

We could rather just fix the rate in such a way as to stronlgy encourage silver mining.  That is the behavior we are after, motivating more people to get into mining to increase the BTC supply and stabilize prices.

[tomcollins]

Back on the time when people buy pizza for 10K, I bough cards for nearby values, I don't bother with it, and BTC flowed without much interruption.
Now... as this one gets to this price, BTC is stuck. Nobody can do business with BTC, it's simply impossible. So I feel the need, as a supporter of an economy of goods, not an economy where "money" is the "good", for a more worthless kind of BTC, one that is usable, and this one ain't.
Hard to understand?

Why is it impossible?  It's certainly possible.  You change your prices.  I wrote code to do this in 15 minutes.  It's super easy.  Once the economy grows large enough, things will stabilize quite a bit.  But it needs to grow to support this.

That's what happens when something moves from being valueless (BTC at the beginning) to somewhat valueable (now).

You can change your prices... is it? How? By setting them up in a fiat currency and a CRON to check BTC last on Mt. Gox every 5 minutes?
Question is: There's no money flow in BTC, without flow all "growth" it represents is illusory. Again: Trading money for money is a process of erosion and self-consuming. Which means in the end BTC will "break" when no more "fresh blood" gets in as in any Ponzi scheme where "the money" and "the good" are one and the same.

 

"Request Price in BTC" -> go see what it costs.

It's trivial to implement.  I've already done this.  You could CRON if you wanted to as well so you wouldn't have to do it on request.

You are correct there is not much flow.  But it's because it just started and not many people use it.  Why?  Because there's not a good reason to (except in niche markets).  It has zero to do with stability.  We need growth.  That will bring stability and make a bigger reason to use it.

[CoinOperated]

"Request Price in BTC" -> go see what it costs.

It's trivial to implement.  I've already done this.  You could CRON if you wanted to as well so you wouldn't have to do it on request.

You are correct there is not much flow.  But it's because it just started and not many people use it.  Why?  Because there's not a good reason to (except in niche markets).  It has zero to do with stability.  We need growth.  That will bring stability and make a bigger reason to use it.

Stability is still an issue.  The merchant will want to convert back to fiat as soon as they can because they do not want to lose money.  They are coffee makers not currency traders.  As soon as the BTC receive verification is "mature enough" it will need a feature to automatically execute on Mt Gox as well. Now the merchant also needs an account on Mt Gox and trust the trades will clear and get paid.  It is adding a lot of hurdles.

I still like the tomcollins "request price" feature, even if the community goes with fixed rate for x:1 you still want to be able to see fiat conversions right in your console.

Growth is definitely needed.  Need to consider what feature will promote it best.

[BCEmporium]

Tom,

Even if you implement such "convert to bitcoins" (and two of my sketches already do it) you still have an issue, with it being so bumpy either you go sell your coins right after the sale or take the risk of holding them, as it bumped on Dec/10 to 1USD, Fev/11 to 0.7, Mar/11 0.6, Apr/11 1... to boom the last week up to 4, now on 1st week of May down to 3 and probably will end the week at 2. Those 200K moved was probably the gathering for a high payment which made BTC to climb this much.
Rather complicated to settle prices within this system.

[BCEmporium]

I still like the tomcollins "request price" feature, even if the community goes with fixed rate for x:1 you still want to be able to see fiat conversions right in your console.

Growth is definitely needed.  Need to consider what feature will promote it best.

I wasn't going to disclosure this project so soon, but this project of mine @ http://www.bcommerce.biz/ already does it. And to prevent "go check" on every 5 minutes it does the conversion by the following formula, once a day it collects fiat currencies value at Google and USD-> BTC at Mt. Gox, it then sets BTC value by the following formula:

Mt.Gox high + Mt.Gox low / 2

It is designed to operate with fiat currencies plus bitcoin. As bitcoin alone (my first sketch) would be hard to penetrate on its own.

[tomcollins]

"Request Price in BTC" -> go see what it costs.

It's trivial to implement.  I've already done this.  You could CRON if you wanted to as well so you wouldn't have to do it on request.

You are correct there is not much flow.  But it's because it just started and not many people use it.  Why?  Because there's not a good reason to (except in niche markets).  It has zero to do with stability.  We need growth.  That will bring stability and make a bigger reason to use it.

Stability is still an issue.  The merchant will want to convert back to fiat as soon as they can because they do not want to lose money.  They are coffee makers not currency traders.  As soon as the BTC receive verification is "mature enough" it will need a feature to automatically execute on Mt Gox as well. Now the merchant also needs an account on Mt Gox and trust the trades will clear and get paid.  It is adding a lot of hurdles.

I still like the tomcollins "request price" feature, even if the community goes with fixed rate for x:1 you still want to be able to see fiat conversions right in your console.

Growth is definitely needed.  Need to consider what feature will promote it best.

I've thought of the idea of handling all of this for merchants, then paying the merchant through ACH transfer or some other means.  I'm not sure it's worth my while right now to pursue, especially since it would be a regulatory nightmare.  Yes, there are hurdles right now.  Accepting bitcoins is either a novelty or a necessity right now.

[CoinOperated]

"Request Price in BTC" -> go see what it costs.

It's trivial to implement.  I've already done this.  You could CRON if you wanted to as well so you wouldn't have to do it on request.

You are correct there is not much flow.  But it's because it just started and not many people use it.  Why?  Because there's not a good reason to (except in niche markets).  It has zero to do with stability.  We need growth.  That will bring stability and make a bigger reason to use it.

Stability is still an issue.  The merchant will want to convert back to fiat as soon as they can because they do not want to lose money.  They are coffee makers not currency traders.  As soon as the BTC receive verification is "mature enough" it will need a feature to automatically execute on Mt Gox as well. Now the merchant also needs an account on Mt Gox and trust the trades will clear and get paid.  It is adding a lot of hurdles.

I still like the tomcollins "request price" feature, even if the community goes with fixed rate for x:1 you still want to be able to see fiat conversions right in your console.

Growth is definitely needed.  Need to consider what feature will promote it best.

I've thought of the idea of handling all of this for merchants, then paying the merchant through ACH transfer or some other means.  I'm not sure it's worth my while right now to pursue, especially since it would be a regulatory nightmare.  Yes, there are hurdles right now.  Accepting bitcoins is either a novelty or a necessity right now.

Your site looks interesting.  So on your bcommerce site, if a merchant lists an antique for $100 USD approx 320 BTC, how do they get paid when it is sold?  Only BTC?

[BCEmporium]

I will give the choice to the seller to set it to be in bitcoins, paypal, wire or cash.
The site just provides the trading "platform". If a fiat is selected it will display the BTC equivalent for either conduct the trade in BTC, if is one of the ways of payment accepted by the seller or buyer, or BTC promotion purposes.

[CoinOperated]

I will give the choice to the seller to set it to be in bitcoins, paypal, wire or cash.
The site just provides the trading "platform". If a fiat is selected it will display the BTC equivalent for either conduct the trade in BTC, if is one of the ways of payment accepted by the seller or buyer, or BTC promotion purposes.

So if the seller wants Paypal USD and the buyer wants BTC, you will perform the clearing trade on their behalf.  Sounds pretty cool.

[BCEmporium]

I will give the choice to the seller to set it to be in bitcoins, paypal, wire or cash.
The site just provides the trading "platform". If a fiat is selected it will display the BTC equivalent for either conduct the trade in BTC, if is one of the ways of payment accepted by the seller or buyer, or BTC promotion purposes.

So if the seller wants Paypal USD and the buyer wants BTC, you will perform the clearing trade on their behalf.  Sounds pretty cool.

No, if the seller doesn't want BTC, simply won't select it when creating the deal.
And this platform is meant to allow both end business; selling or buying. If you want to buy something, let's say a pair of pants, you start it by saying your maximum budget for it is 10 USD. A offers to sell it at 9, B at 8... reason why I said "the seller OR the buyer", depends on what end the deal was started.
As it goes maybe I'll give your idea some thought, but that would depend on a stable BTC... otherwise I would be playing Russian roulette by intermediate such trade.

[abyssobenthonic]

Even if you let gold BTC float vs. silver BTC, you'd still likely see silver BTC be worthless in gold BTC terms as time goes on.

There are implicit interest rates in silver and in gold.  Any interest rate, remember, can be expressed as a discount rate: the price of the future good in terms of the present good.  Ten minutes from now, there will be about 50 more [gold] bitcoins (ignoring bitcoins lost due to death of people and/or computers) out there with an increase approaching epsilon in their aggregate value so the value of each bitcoin will decrease.  A bitcoin ten minutes from now is worth about AuBTC 0.99999177 in current gold bitcoins.  Likewise there's a discount rate in AgBTC.  Let's say for argument that ten-minute AgBTC is worth 0.98 in current AgBTC (i.e. that AgBTC's supply is growing faster than AuBTC's).

There's also an exchange rate between AgBTC and AuBTC.  Since we can calculate the price of future AuBTC in present AuBTC, the price of future AgBTC in present AgBTC, and the price of present AgBTC in present AuBTC, we can calculate the price of future AuBTC in AgBTC.  The interest/discount rate in both currencies and their current exchange rate is a prediction market for the future exchange rate.  The future AgBTC/AuBTC rate predicted by the three rates will converge on the actual AgBTC/AuBTC rate as the future approaches (as time under consideration approaches zero, future and present approach parity).  This prediction is thus arbitrageable: if you know that your prediction of the discount rates is accurate, there's profit to be made.

We'll have the current AgBTC/AuBTC rate be 10.  Then 10 futureAgBTC is worth 9.80 presentAgBTC which is worth 0.98 presentAuBTC which is worth 0.980008 future AgBTC implying a future (mind you: future means 10 minutes from now) exchange rate of 10.2.  Silver has depreciated against gold but the interest rates in silver are markedly higher than they are in gold (the interest rate for lending 1 AuBTC for 10 minutes is .00082298% while the interest rate for lending 1 AgBTC for 10 minutes is 2.0408%).

The question now is, which would you rather hold?  Are you saying "look at that rate in AgBTC!  I should be in silver!"?  If that's what you say, you're not holding, you're investing/lending.  If you have the choice of investing/lending in AgBTC or AuBTC the choice is neutral if you accept the discount rates and exchange rate as accurate: the change in the exchange rate will cancel out the difference in the discount rates.

Investing/lending doesn't decrease the set of currency holders.  If you lend money to someone it's either because he wants to hold money, he wants to lend it to someone else who wants to hold it, or he wants to trade it for something else and the person he trades it with will then either hold it, or lend it, or trade it for something else...  at some point someone is making the decision to hold or "hoard" AgBTC or AuBTC.  Given that the value of 1 AgBTC in AuBTC is falling, it's fairly clear that these individuals should have a rational preference to hold AuBTC over AgBTC.

This results in exit pressure from AgBTC to AuBTC as the hoarders obey the incentive which puts more upward pressure on the AgBTC/AuBTC rate which increases the incentive for hoarders to hold AuBTC.  We have a positive feedback loop that continues until AgBTC is worthless, unless there is some external factor at play.

One of those possible external factors is that the lenders don't understand what's happening and thus make suboptimal decisions.  If AuBTC is predictably appreciating by 2% over AgBTC but the loan markets in both currencies predict only 1% appreciation (basically that AgBTC rates are 1 point higher than AuBTC rates) then you see lucrative investments in businesses whose only act is to hold gold and hedge it with the prediction of lower appreciation.  Eventually these investments crowd out all other AgBTC investments and the AgBTC rate is driven to 2 points over the AuBTC rate.

Another is that some party who creates present AgBTC to buy future AgBTC, thus disrupting the interest rate inputs.  The danger for this party, of course, is that they're not just creating present AgBTC to buy the future AgBTC generated by the appreciation in AuBTC.

In any case, speculators on these things can and will speculate, and the speculations boil down to long AuBTC and short AgBTC.  Again, the predictable appreciation of AuBTC over AgBTC generates predictable appreciation of AuBTC over AgBTC.  Monetary competition is fundamentally unstable: there's no negative feedback, only positive feedback.

Thus why fixing the exchange rate between AuBTC and AgBTC is doomed to failure: at some point there will be a jolt that is sufficient to start one currency appreciating and once that happens the appreciating currency will appreciate until the depreciating currency is worthless.  But even with floating rates, this phenomenon happens: the rational saver will rebalance into the rising currency and de-diversify out of the falling one (or at least, the sooner he figures this out, the better off he is).

This happens with non-fiat currencies all the time: thus far basically every commodity (barring a few exceptions like Pacific islands that use rocks) besides gold and silver has been demonetized and silver is almost totally demonetized (despite the word for money in a ton of languages being the word for silver...) relative to gold.

In the world of national fiat currencies, holders and users are not homogeneously distributed.  Most of the people for whom USD has intrinsic value (viz. the ability to keep the US government from kidnapping them, killing them, and/or taking their stuff) are in one area of the world.  Even if they keep most of their savings in something else (gold, bitcoin, swiss francs, shares of facebook, etc.) and use something else (possibly not the same thing) as a medium of exchange for buying food etc., they still need to buy and hold USD from time to time.  Is there a group of people that need AgBTC in order to survive or keep their stuff?

[CoinOperated]

I'm not sure we're on the same page regarding what it means to fix "x" where AgBTC:AuBTC = x:1 exchange rate.

The direction that people chose to exchange should be a function of which is easier to mine.  I am not sure that a fixed rate is practical, but let me restate the idea so that it can be examined.

The price of AuBTC and AgBTC in fiat currencies, say USD, would fluctuate independently according to the market.  This is necessary since they are separate chains and can be transacted independently.  Initially the quantity of AgBTC would be small helping to support a high price, plus it would be easy to mine. This would attract miners away from spending their CPU cycles on Au and into Ag mining since it is more profitable in USD.  Clearly there is an arbitrage opportunity if AgBTC/USD:AuBTC/USD < x people would sell AgBTC for USD and then buy AuBTC and then use the fixed rate x:1 to convert back to AgBTC.  This would force prices back to a ratio of x:1.  However even afer the arbitrage closes the gap, miners would still be attracted to AgBTC because it is less than 1/x times as costly at first. Eventually the cost of mining AgBTC would increase just above 1/x times AuBTC as more miners come in, and miners would switch back to AuBTC.

It seems that it would be intuitive to set the mining rate of Ag and the limit at x times Au. But I cannot think of why it has to be so.  Can you?

Another interesting question is this: Undoubtedly some Au enthusiasts will not want to deal in Ag.  That is their choice. Can an Ag-Au system co-exist nicely with a smaller Au-only system?

[tomcollins]

I'm not sure we're on the same page regarding what it means to fix "x" where AgBTC:AuBTC = x:1 exchange rate.

The direction that people chose to exchange should be a function of which is easier to mine.  I am not sure that a fixed rate is practical, but let me restate the idea so that it can be examined.

The price of AuBTC and AgBTC in fiat currencies, say USD, would fluctuate independently according to the market.  This is necessary since they are separate chains and can be transacted independently.  Initially the quantity of AgBTC would be small helping to support a high price, plus it would be easy to mine. This would attract miners away from spending their CPU cycles on Au and into Ag mining since it is more profitable in USD.  Clearly there is an arbitrage opportunity if AgBTC/USD:AuBTC/USD < x people would sell AgBTC for USD and then buy AuBTC and then use the fixed rate x:1 to convert back to AgBTC.  This would force prices back to a ratio of x:1.  However even afer the arbitrage closes the gap, miners would still be attracted to AgBTC because it is less than 1/x times as costly at first. Eventually the cost of mining AgBTC would increase just above 1/x times AuBTC as more miners come in, and miners would switch back to AuBTC.

It seems that it would be intuitive to set the mining rate of Ag and the limit at x times Au. But I cannot think of why it has to be so.  Can you?

Another interesting question is this: Undoubtedly some Au enthusiasts will not want to deal in Ag.  That is their choice. Can an Ag-Au system co-exist nicely with a smaller Au-only system?

The quantity being small doesn't make a high price.  There is a small quantity of my turds that are framed, yet the price is strangely not high.  No one wants them.

If you had a fixed exchange rate, this means someone has to be forced to accept one kind of currency in place of the other.  Would the client force this to happen?  In that case, you really just have one currency and you created more Bitcoins.  If this were to happen, it would render Bitcoins valueless.  If you can arbitrarily add more and more Bitcoins at any point, it completely defeats the point, and the price would go to $0.  There would be no point in using it.

But if you let things float, sure, it could happen.  The market is so small, some people would go off looking at AgCoins and try to get in early on it.  But they wouldn't be worth much.  The Bitcoin price would also drop some due to uncertainty and having competition.  This is the biggest natural threat to BitCoin (you can make arbitrarily as many identical clones of it as possible, no longer making it scarce).

But again, what is the point of this?  Do you just want to artificially lower the price?  Get in on a second mining boom?  What problem with Bitcoin is actually being solved by forking/forcing the main client to deal with a fork?

[BCEmporium]

No, Tom, ever wonder why we've so many forms of currency around? A: Diversity.
At this moment bitcoin is a failure on its main purpose, it's impossible to conduct micropayments with it, as 1 cent worth already 0.03 USD+ and this will probably go up.
The secondary bitcoin, which can be done within a dual-bitcoin holder (this and the other) - create a "fork" or a fork alone to deal with that secondary BTC would render just a concurrent currency. If some or a lot sticks to this BTC and refuse the other, fair enough, I don't see how to enforce people to accept this one, so I wouldn't see a reason or how to enforce people to accept the other.

I see an issue into force a conversion rate, as it would need some sort of "Central Banking" to enforce and control the supply of AgBTC... not quite possible within the BTC decentralization. But if a group decides to put that idea forward... as long as they've both sorts of BTC enough to hold it as so. But I believe for practical terms it will need to float in the market.

As for the "new mining rush", you must see it as a way to get more people to join BTC, not as "oh sh**! I'm f**ng greedy with the BTC I generated in 2010 and I'll not allow anybody else to touch it". Your AuBTC is safe, don't bother with it... you let some new folks mint their 50 AgBTC and get more supporters - thus some old miners may interest in mint Ag at the beginning making it less time-spawning as AuBTC in the beginning.

[tomcollins]

No, Tom, ever wonder why we've so many forms of currency around? A: Diversity.

Wrong answer.  Until very recently, there was only one currency.  Gold.  This happened because it was the best currency, and it destroyed all competitors.  Governments finally changed this when they realized they couldn't print gold and realized the power of devaluing their own currency. 

At this moment bitcoin is a failure on its main purpose, it's impossible to conduct micropayments with it, as 1 cent worth already 0.03 USD+ and this will probably go up.

Actually incorrect.  You can certainly do less.  And there is the power to do MUCH less (but having nano-transactions overhwelms the network and serves no purpose).

The secondary bitcoin, which can be done within a dual-bitcoin holder (this and the other) - create a "fork" or a fork alone to deal with that secondary BTC would render just a concurrent currency. If some or a lot sticks to this BTC and refuse the other, fair enough, I don't see how to enforce people to accept this one, so I wouldn't see a reason or how to enforce people to accept the other.

You have two options and only two.  An independent concurrent currency (that may be integrated into the client or not, doesn't matter), or some additional fixed rate currency (which means you just expand the number of Bitcoins, and give the new ones funny names).  Doing the first is possible.  Go for it!  The second one will crash Bitcoin to $0 (or would just be rejected by anyone who knows anything).

I see an issue into force a conversion rate, as it would need some sort of "Central Banking" to enforce and control the supply of AgBTC... not quite possible within the BTC decentralization. But if a group decides to put that idea forward... as long as they've both sorts of BTC enough to hold it as so. But I believe for practical terms it will need to float in the market.

As for the "new mining rush", you must see it as a way to get more people to join BTC, not as "oh sh**! I'm f**ng greedy with the BTC I generated in 2010 and I'll not allow anybody else to touch it". Your AuBTC is safe, don't bother with it... you let some new folks mint their 50 AgBTC and get more supporters - thus some old miners may interest in mint Ag at the beginning making it less time-spawning as AuBTC in the beginning.

So fork teh code and create AgBTC.  Everyone will ignore your useless currency and you will see for yourself.  Or some people will flock to it, half people will use regular BTC, half will use AgBTC, and the value of each will be cut in half, until someone makes Bronze, Iron, Zinc, etc...

As for getting new people to join it, if there is free money, the people who are in best position to get to it will get to it.  New people aren't going to mine some random valueless currency at a greater rate than the people already involved in Bitcoin.  If it's easy to mine, it's because it's valueless.  If it becomes valueable, then people will just switch.

It seems your main complaint is "it's too hard to mine".  Well no shit, it's supposed to be hard to mine.  No one is supposed to get rich mining except maybe the early adopters who were just gambling anyway.  People should focus on getting Bitcoins by either buying them from people or by offering goods and services for them.  Mining is not adding much value to the Bitcoin economy.  If all we did was mine, it would be as pointless as http://progressquest.com (mining has value as a transaction logger, but if there were no transactions, it becomes pointless).

You claim you want stability and predictability in the value.  Why suggest things that would do the exact opposite.  Although adding new currencies that people are forced to redeem at a fixed rate would give stability and preditability- it would make the value 0.