$5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue

[inBitweTrust]

Why would I address something you made up? there is no dilution to pay the salaries of developers, it's a merger of multiple eco-systems into one. Maybe you could provide me a non-existent link to back up your claim, like the last time you made up something from your imagination? I know you have a very vivid imagination. Do you need me to post our PMs to show your non-existent claims?

You must be so busy typing out propaganda that you missed the fact that I already did provide the evidence:

It is interesting to study Bitshares as a DPoS test case example where a social 51% attack is stealing funds from the minority dissenters:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.0

Reasons delegates mostly approve the merger:

1) Conflict between BTSX and VOTE. ( One developer was able to leverage his time creating a competing DAC betraying what investors paid him to focus on. This is than used to motivate stakeholders and other delegates into accepting a dilution in hopes of not introducing competition. )

2) Complexity. Invictus created a clusterfuck with multiple tokens PTS/AGS/BTSX/ and multiple DACs. The merger is a hope to clean up this confusion

3) Need for capital infusion.  Invictus and developers are blowing through their IPO cash and will soon run out. Additionally, they realize they are so far behind and competition is so fierce they need a ton of capital to not get squashed with a big marketing campaign

[kokojie]

Of course it's a problem, I'm being charged 10% tax on my Bitcoin holding, for something that is easily replaceable and useless.

Please do yourself a favor and let your actions match your convictions. Sell us your bitcoins and invest in Bitshares completely since you have so much faith in DPoS and so little trust in PoW. Why don't you invest in BTSX now before the big marketing push that is coming in a couple months! If you are smart you can even take those profits and re-buy into BTC right before the halfing to profit again and than sell those profits for BTSX.

The fact that you don't sell your bitcoins tells the whole story.

Why would I do that? if I have a leech sucking my blood on my leg, do I cut off my leg? or do I kill/remove the leech from my leg? I guess by your logic, you should cut off your leg to remove a leech.

[johnyj]

Oh nooooo, not this again  

[kokojie]

Why would I address something you made up? there is no dilution to pay the salaries of developers, it's a merger of multiple eco-systems into one. Maybe you could provide me a non-existent link to back up your claim, like the last time you made up something from your imagination? I know you have a very vivid imagination. Do you need me to post our PMs to show your non-existent claims?

You must be so busy typing out propaganda that you missed the fact that I already did provide the evidence:

It is interesting to study Bitshares as a DPoS test case example where a social 51% attack is stealing funds from the minority dissenters:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.0

Reasons delegates mostly approve the merger:

1) Conflict between BTSX and VOTE. ( One developer was able to leverage his time creating a competing DAC betraying what investors paid him to focus on. This is than used to motivate stakeholders and other delegates into accepting a dilution in hopes of not introducing competition. )

2) Complexity. Invictus created a clusterfuck with multiple tokens PTS/AGS/BTSX/ and multiple DACs. The merger is a hope to clean up this confusion

3) Need for capital infusion.  Invictus and developers are blowing through their IPO cash and will soon run out. Additionally, they realize they are so far behind and competition is so fierce they need a ton of capital to not get squashed with a big marketing campaign

What evidence, you posted something that is similarly made up, just like your own. I want to see something posted by the dev team, saying there will be a portion extra paid to the developers within the merger proposal.

[TonyT]

Of course it's a problem, I'm being charged 10% tax on my Bitcoin holding, for something that is easily replaceable and useless.

Please do yourself a favor and let your actions match your convictions. Sell us your bitcoins and invest in Bitshares completely since you have so much faith in DPoS and so little trust in PoW. Why don't you invest in BTSX now before the big marketing push that is coming in a couple months! If you are smart you can even take those profits and re-buy into BTC right before the halfing to profit again and than sell those profits for BTSX.

The fact that you don't sell your bitcoins tells the whole story.

I read the white paper referenced in this thread on why PoW is needed, and while I don't know enough about this topic to say this whitepaper is the last word, it seems plausible.

But then, even if you accept that PoW is necessary, the OP's larger point is still very true: BTC is an unstable system, due to high mining costs, that requires a constant influx of new money or equivalently, fees to be paid by existing users, in order to keep the system going.  It's an ongoing tax on users.  As such, Bitcoin is unstable and not necessarily an improvement over PayPal (except for the anonymity, which IMO is going away within the next five to ten years).  I see in the end Bitcoin becoming like PayPal, nothing special.

[kokojie]

A huge part of Bitcoin's success is thanks to PoW.

OP can't see the forest for the trees.

OP should fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and let it compete with Bitcoin. Someone, for the love of all things holy, please fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and release it so we can put these endless debates to bed.

No, Bitcoin's success is thanks to its early start, to Satoshi's innovation and to the efforts of the community. PoW had very little to do with it. If Bitcoin had used PoS from the start, it would probably be more successful, and we might already be seeing $5000 per coin today.

We could both make unsubstantiated claims all day long. Just fork the code and let them compete. I fully support forking Bitcoin to PoX.

I wouldn't support that, why would I cut off my leg to remove a leech from my leg, your proposal is childish and laughable.

[redsn0w]

Of course it's a problem, I'm being charged 10% tax on my Bitcoin holding, for something that is easily replaceable and useless.

Please do yourself a favor and let your actions match your convictions. Sell us your bitcoins and invest in Bitshares completely since you have so much faith in DPoS and so little trust in PoW. Why don't you invest in BTSX now before the big marketing push that is coming in a couple months! If you are smart you can even take those profits and re-buy into BTC right before the halfing to profit again and than sell those profits for BTSX.

The fact that you don't sell your bitcoins tells the whole story.

Why would I do that? if I have a leech sucking my blood on my leg, do I cut off my leg? or do I kill/remove the leech from my leg? I guess by your logic, you should cut off your leg to remove a leech.

Can you allowe me to say you one thing ? If you don't like the PoW  system -btc :: you can always leave ( or you can try to contact one  of the btc devs ).

[inBitweTrust]

Why would I do that? if I have a leech sucking my blood on my leg, do I cut off my leg? or do I kill/remove the leech from my leg? I guess by your logic, you should cut off your leg to remove a leech.

Poor Analogy. The "Leech" is the PoW wasteful mining. I am suggesting you remove the leech and take your beautiful leg and cloth it with some shiny new DPoS Bitcoin 2.0 goodness.

Or did you buy all your coins above 400 and need to wait as not to harm your investments?

[kokojie]

Of course it's a problem, I'm being charged 10% tax on my Bitcoin holding, for something that is easily replaceable and useless.

Please do yourself a favor and let your actions match your convictions. Sell us your bitcoins and invest in Bitshares completely since you have so much faith in DPoS and so little trust in PoW. Why don't you invest in BTSX now before the big marketing push that is coming in a couple months! If you are smart you can even take those profits and re-buy into BTC right before the halfing to profit again and than sell those profits for BTSX.

The fact that you don't sell your bitcoins tells the whole story.

Why would I do that? if I have a leech sucking my blood on my leg, do I cut off my leg? or do I kill/remove the leech from my leg? I guess by your logic, you should cut off your leg to remove a leech.

Can you allowe me to say you one thing ? If you don't like the PoW  system -btc :: you can always leave ( or you can try to contact one  of the btc devs ).

That's same as cutting off a leg to remove a leech from leg. Any sane person would not do that, but instead they will make an effort to remove the leech.

[DumbFruit]

But then, even if you accept that PoW is necessary, the OP's larger point is still very true: BTC is an unstable system, due to high mining costs, that requires a constant influx of new money or equivalently, fees to be paid by existing users, in order to keep the system going.  It's an ongoing tax on users.  As such, Bitcoin is unstable and not necessarily an improvement over PayPal (except for the anonymity, which IMO is going away within the next five to ten years).  I see in the end Bitcoin becoming like PayPal, nothing special.

Mining costs don't make Bitcoin unstable anymore than paying construction companies makes buildings unstable.

[kokojie]

Why would I do that? if I have a leech sucking my blood on my leg, do I cut off my leg? or do I kill/remove the leech from my leg? I guess by your logic, you should cut off your leg to remove a leech.

Poor Analogy. The "Leech" is the PoW wasteful mining. I am suggesting you remove the leech and take your beautiful leg and cloth it with some shiny new DPoS Bitcoin 2.0 goodness.

Or did you buy all your coins above 400 and need to wait as not to harm your investments?

Ok, try another analogy then, if you don't like Obama as President, do you try to vote him out? or do you pack up your family, quit your job and permanently move out of the US?

[kokojie]

A huge part of Bitcoin's success is thanks to PoW.

OP can't see the forest for the trees.

OP should fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and let it compete with Bitcoin. Someone, for the love of all things holy, please fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and release it so we can put these endless debates to bed.

No, Bitcoin's success is thanks to its early start, to Satoshi's innovation and to the efforts of the community. PoW had very little to do with it. If Bitcoin had used PoS from the start, it would probably be more successful, and we might already be seeing $5000 per coin today.

We could both make unsubstantiated claims all day long. Just fork the code and let them compete. I fully support forking Bitcoin to PoX.

I wouldn't support that, why would I cut off my leg to remove a leech from my leg, your proposal is childish and laughable.

What are you proposing if it isn't a fork?

I'm proposing an official fork approved and distributed by Gavin Andressen, not a 3rd party fork.

[inBitweTrust]

What evidence, you posted something that is similarly made up, just like your own. I want to see something posted by the dev team, saying there will be a portion extra paid to the developers within the merger proposal.

You are in serious denial buddy. I gave you a post created by delegates and stickied by the head moderators.

this is another example where I am privy to more information about Bitshares than you. If you don't trust that post than simply read these posts from    bytemaster


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=5


Don't you trust that source at least?

[kokojie]

What evidence, you posted something that is similarly made up, just like your own. I want to see something posted by the dev team, saying there will be a portion extra paid to the developers within the merger proposal.

You are in serious denial buddy. I gave you a post created by delegates and stickied by the head moderators.

this is another example where I am privy to more information about Bitshares than you. If you don't trust that post than simply read these posts from    bytemaster


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=5


Don't you trust that source at least?

Yes, but the part you quoted, is a speculation, therefore it's made up, just like your speculation. If you going to convince anyone, you'll need to post something written by the dev team.

[inBitweTrust]

Ok, try another analogy then, if you don't like Obama as President, do you try to vote him out? or do you pack up your family, quit your job and permanently move out of the US?

I did the former actually and moved out of the US, as anyone with a little historical background would soon realize that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

[kokojie]

A huge part of Bitcoin's success is thanks to PoW.

OP can't see the forest for the trees.

OP should fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and let it compete with Bitcoin. Someone, for the love of all things holy, please fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and release it so we can put these endless debates to bed.

No, Bitcoin's success is thanks to its early start, to Satoshi's innovation and to the efforts of the community. PoW had very little to do with it. If Bitcoin had used PoS from the start, it would probably be more successful, and we might already be seeing $5000 per coin today.

We could both make unsubstantiated claims all day long. Just fork the code and let them compete. I fully support forking Bitcoin to PoX.

I wouldn't support that, why would I cut off my leg to remove a leech from my leg, your proposal is childish and laughable.

What are you proposing if it isn't a fork?

I'm proposing an official fork approved and distributed by Gavin Andressen, not a 3rd party fork.

Official? Call it whatever you want, you can't force me to installed the forked software. Thus, they will compete. I don't particularly care who approves and distributes it!

Sure, no one can force you, but then you will lose value on all your Bitcoin. Any sane user will choose the client and network distributed by Gavin Andressen, as long as he's the leader developer for Bitcoin.

[kokojie]

Ok, try another analogy then, if you don't like Obama as President, do you try to vote him out? or do you pack up your family, quit your job and permanently move out of the US?

I did the former actually and moved out of the US, as anyone with a little historical background would soon realize that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Good for you, but the hundreds of millions of people that voted against Obama, certainly didn't move out of the US, therefore the majority of the people agree with my logic instead of yours.

[Cubic Earth]

kokojie, you have a few decent points, but I agree with inBitweTrust you have overplayed your hand here.

First, the main thing working against the price right now is the monetary supply inflation rate.  It is currently between 10% and 15% per year right now depending on how many coins, if any, are assumed to be lost.  And regardless of the total available supply, we know there are at least 1.3 million coins set to be issues per year right now.  At $400 per coin that is over $500 million in new wealth that would have to come in to buy up all those coins.

So what if was some sort of proof of state, and those 1.3 million coins went to existing holders?  You have a good point that us existing holders wouldn’t be under the same finical pressure to sell coins as the miners, as ostensibly we wouldn’t have such large expenses to cover.  But make no mistake: many of those new coins would still hit the market, and there would still be massive downward price pressure due to 1.3 million new coins hitting the market.

Proof of work is ingenious.  It doesn’t solve all problems though, and I think the community would be wise to always consider adapting the bitcoin security system if better solutions are proven.  Economic efficiency will be part of the security calculation, and I would not be at all surprised to see a PoS / PoW hybrid system in the future.

You keep saying PoW mining transfers value out of the ecosystem.  I don’t think that is the appropriate way to view it.  I see it as more helpful to look at all of the mining hardware as an investment the community is making in its own security system.  How much do we invest in such a system?  The current incentives suggest the investment be equal to the expected value of all the un-mined coins + expected transaction fees.  I will agree that this incentive could be leading us astray, that we could be over-investing in ASIC hardware and electricity costs.  So the question is, what should we be investing in instead?  Perhaps more code development?  More legal work?  More bitcoin education?  What if we, as a community, could figure out a way to steer 20% of mining revenues towards other goals?  That would be $100,000,000 per year at current prices.  It wouldn’t appreciably change the investment in hash power (okay, it would reduce it by 20%), but we would be expanding by 30-fold the amount invested in software development and etc.

I think the way this would be most likely to happen would be someone presenting a plan to all the mining pools, and getting them all to agree to turn over some percentage of mined coins to some representative body that would transparently reinvest the coins into aspects of the ecosystem other than hashing data centers.  The miners could like this proposal because they could realize that through collective effort, and “giving up” a fraction of their proceeds, they could actually boost the value of bitcoin by far more in the long run.

And you wouldn’t actually need all miners to go along with the plan, just 70% - 80% of the hash power.  The remaining ones could be forced to comply .  Miners getting together and planning:  you can call it a cartel, collusion, or cooperating.  It really just depends on your perspective.

Bitcoin talk threads that turn into rants are not going to solve the problem though, and there is just no way that proof-of-work mining is going to be abandoned outright or suddenly in any way.  Nor should it be.  It has gotten us this far already, so there is certainly something to it.  What can help is if someone wants to put in the work of building consensus amongst the mining pools to diverting a small fraction of new coins to other bitcoin projects.

Think multi-sig.  The whole endeavor could be done in a transparent, cryptographically audible fashion.

[inBitweTrust]

Yes, but the part you quoted, is a speculation, therefore it's made up, just like your speculation. If you going to convince anyone, you'll need to post something written by the dev team.

Daniel isn't part of the dev team? Are you even aware of what the merger entails?

[inBitweTrust]

Sure, no one can force you, but then you will lose value on all your Bitcoin. Any sane user will choose the client and network distributed by Gavin Andressen, as long as he's the leader developer for Bitcoin.

You don't understand how consensus is done in Github. Why don't you make your proposal to Gavin himself directly if you think he is so special.

Good for you, but the hundreds of millions of people that voted against Obama, certainly didn't move out of the US, therefore the majority of the people agree with my logic instead of yours.

By your very own logic, you are being taxed 10% a year because of this leech. The only reason you could have that would be rational within your argument is if you bought all your coins above 366 and are waiting to break even before Bitshares big marketing push.