I hereby propose that anyone starting future threads advocating perpetual devaluation of Bitcoin units, be punished via traditional old-style methods reserved for such ideas:
Sec. 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be pursuant to the directions of this act...every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offences, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792
Topic: 1BR: Should the block reward be 50 BTC for ages? (Read 6014 times)
I used a term that people would interpret differently so I defined it. Calm down people.
Since no one can seem to agree on this, can't you people simply say "price inflation" or "monetary inflation" or "price deflation" or "monetary deflation" in the future?
This. Simply use those 4 terms. Definitions only make sense if people know what you mean when you say it. Using price or monetary although verbose means the intent exactly clear. There is no need for the confusion and then the 20-30 posts in a debate over who's definition is the right one.
No it's not, it's the same mistake as calling rising prices inflation.
Except that rising prices is called inflation.
Quote
Deflation is the decrease in money supply
Except that falling prices is called deflation.
This message board is the only place in the world that has a different definition because of one misinterpreted quote by Milton Friedman.
It really is not very becoming.
I use inflation in the proper sense, to refer to the growth of the money supply (number of bitcoin). I'm not referring to price or change in prices.
But even though deflation is universally used to mean price levels in bitcoin, that is ok?
No it's not, it's the same mistake as calling rising prices inflation. Deflation is the decrease in money supply for instance when debt is liquidated a lot of supply that was on the books somewhere gets wiped out and consequently the rest of the remaining units of currency become worth more which has the effect of falling prices.
Bitcoin is currently experiencing high double digit inflation and is not designed to ever experience deflation although there is and will be some small amount of deflation due to lost coins.
Personally, I think it universally makes more sense that inflation and deflation refer to prices unless you say "monetary inflation/deflation."
Considering that Friedman did not even mean that inflating the money supply equals price inflation, it is about as faux-pedantic as you can get.
Considering that Friedman did not even mean that inflating the money supply equals price inflation, it is about as faux-pedantic as you can get.
I use inflation in the proper sense, to refer to the growth of the money supply (number of bitcoin). I'm not referring to price or change in prices.
But even though deflation is universally used to mean price levels in bitcoin, that is ok?
This is such a silly distinction made by one person, a monetarist, that leads to "an aggravating spew of stupid arguments about one man's eccentric definition of a word on this message board phenomenon."
Inflation is simply a way to distribute bitcoin. Once all the coins are distributed inflation has no more purpose in the system and is eliminated. Keeping it around only increases the number of bitcoin, which we know is completely arbitrary.
I use inflation in the proper sense, to refer to the growth of the money supply (number of bitcoin). I'm not referring to price or change in prices.
I use inflation in the proper sense, to refer to the growth of the money supply (number of bitcoin). I'm not referring to price or change in prices.
That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin. If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over. The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate). Sound familiar?
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.
Hell, u r right! Now I'm not so confident that we need to change anything in the plan...
DeathAndTaxes nailed it! Well said. And come-from-beyond, I'm glad you're reasonable enough to understand it now
You most certainly wouldn't be alone. The rules of Bitcoin are the main reason I am here and am using it.
I see so few people say this, I sometimes wonder (I guess it goes without saying, but occasionally it needs said)! Thank you!
I have my software set so that I'll automatically keep using bitcoin even if someone else starts using a different system.
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
You most certainly wouldn't be alone. The rules of Bitcoin are the main reason I am here and am using it.
That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin. If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over. The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate). Sound familiar?
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.
Hell, u r right! Now I'm not so confident that we need to change anything in the plan...
Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.
And in 20 years everyone today is an early adopter. So maybe they say "there are 100x as many people" seems unfair we only get 50 BTC per block. Maybe the block reward should be increased to 500 BTC per block. Same exact logic used now. The current miners benefit from a theft of the current existing coin holders.
That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin. If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over. The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate). Sound familiar?
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.
Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.
Imagine that! People want to be secure in the value of their possessions. Far out!
Hey! But bitcoin price will go up anyway. No so fast but still up, not down.
Make them less scarce and they will be worth less in direct propotion.
Direct proportion for the TOTAL amount of bitcoins. If early adopters own major part of all coins then they'll incur major part of loss.
Let's look at numbers:
U r an early adopter with 10'500'000 coins. I'm a miner. Total value of all bitcoins is 21'000'000 USD (1 BTC = 1 USD).
After I mine the rest of the coins (10'500'000) each of us has 10'500'000 BTC which is equal to 10'500'000 USD.
If mining reward algo was adjusted to allow to mine 42'000'000 coins, then I would have 31'500'000 BTC.
42'000'000 bitcoins would set price of 1 BTC to 0.5 USD, so u would have 5'250'000 USD and I would have 15'750'000 USD.
Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.
I don't know why Satoshi decided to limit total qty of bitcoins to 21'000'000 coins. I suspect he made it to tempt early adopters with possibility to become very rich ppl. Now Bitcoin doesn't need such a trick and WE could change the plan. Bitcoin network exists due to hard work of miners and I dislike the idea to halve their reward in the nearest future. Of coz a lot of ppl will be against keeping the reward unchanged. But if these ppl r NOT miners then miners don't need to pay much attention to them. Miners r those who rule Bitcoin.
I suggest other plan. We'll know how many ppl support the idea to keep 50 BTC forever. We'll change the algo in the bitcoin client. When the time for 25 BTC reward comes we'll see which part of the network becomes the winner.
It's time for 1st Bitcoin Revolution...
I suggest other plan. We'll know how many ppl support the idea to keep 50 BTC forever. We'll change the algo in the bitcoin client. When the time for 25 BTC reward comes we'll see which part of the network becomes the winner.
It's time for 1st Bitcoin Revolution...
To remove the 21m cap on Bitcoin would destroy the entire project. I wonder how happy the miners would be, if they can earn 50btc on every block forever, but the coins are worth zero.
To not undersatnd this concept is to be so ignorant of the economics behind Bitcoin that one should just slap oneself in the face. Mining Bitcoins is only valuable to the extent those coins are useful and scarce. Make them less scarce and they will be worth less in direct propotion. There is ZERO benefit to miners of removing the cap, or releasing more coins somehow. It does not create more wealth, it merely creates more money units that will reprice themselves in the market given the new number of units.
Solidcoin what ever happened to that manass muncher realsolid? Just his name was enough to warrant an F off to SC.
Fun times laughing at his stupid rants about his bogus BTC wannabe garbage
Fun times laughing at his stupid rants about his bogus BTC wannabe garbage
We should expect worse-case scenario. Just in case.
If we continue to give 50 BTC per block, you are effectively taking a fee from every user even if they didn't need to pay for block verification. When the block rate goes to 0, then there is the voluntary transaction fee that will pay miners. Then the fee goes to something useful (faster processing). We're weening off of a communal fee for block verification (where everyone pays equally) to a pay-for-the-quality-you-need system. The Austrian school economists that are attracted to bitcoin think the 21m cap is brilliant and necessary. Without a hard cap, the every bitcoin holder continues to pay verification fees in perpetuity whether they make transactions or not.
Solidcoin what ever happened to that manass muncher realsolid? Just his name was enough to warrant an F off to SC.
Fun times laughing at his stupid rants about his bogus BTC wannabe garbage
Fun times laughing at his stupid rants about his bogus BTC wannabe garbage
Then the 95% of non-miners would buy up mining equipment and become miners to compete.
Interesting to think about though...
Interesting to think about though...
Not really interesting. USA will just press [shutdown Bitcoin] button and both forks become useless bunch of numbers.
Bitcoin is based on the infrastructure that belongs to governments. If Bitcoin becomes a worldwide currency before we manage to create our own internet, then it will be wiped out.
Jump to: