1BR: Should the block reward be 50 BTC for ages? - page 2.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: makomk on September 14, 2012, 01:38:01 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 13, 2012, 02:50:42 PM

Say you did fork Bitcoin, and 95% of miners moved over to this new blockchain so they could be paid 50 BTC forever.

Now, 95% of non-miners stay with the real Bitcoin blockchain, and 5% of miners.

So 95% of miners are now mining this worthless fork that no one is actually using for transactions, because non-miners are still using the real Bitcoin blockchain instead. The price drops on said worthless fork because no one is using it, and therefore no one wants it. It starts to see values along the lines of Solidcoin when compared with real Bitcoins.

Meanwhile, the 5% of miners who stayed with the original Bitcoin blockchain are still happily mining along and keeping transactions moving along, the currency still has value, and people are still making transactions with it.

Now suppose that those 95% of miners decide that, because this isn't good enough, they should each dedicate 10% of their hashrate to preventing any transactions from being confirmed in the other chain by mining empty blocks and refusing to build on any block that isn't empty. (On the surface this would seem to run into the usual problems associated with collective action, but there are clever ways they could enforce this rule.) Suddenly you can't make any transactions with the original Bitcoin blockchain anymore.

Then the 95% of non-miners would buy up mining equipment and become miners to compete.

Interesting to think about though...

makomk

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 564

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 13, 2012, 02:50:42 PM

Say you did fork Bitcoin, and 95% of miners moved over to this new blockchain so they could be paid 50 BTC forever.

Now, 95% of non-miners stay with the real Bitcoin blockchain, and 5% of miners.

So 95% of miners are now mining this worthless fork that no one is actually using for transactions, because non-miners are still using the real Bitcoin blockchain instead. The price drops on said worthless fork because no one is using it, and therefore no one wants it. It starts to see values along the lines of Solidcoin when compared with real Bitcoins.

Meanwhile, the 5% of miners who stayed with the original Bitcoin blockchain are still happily mining along and keeping transactions moving along, the currency still has value, and people are still making transactions with it.

Now suppose that those 95% of miners decide that, because this isn't good enough, they should each dedicate 10% of their hashrate to preventing any transactions from being confirmed in the other chain by mining empty blocks and refusing to build on any block that isn't empty. (On the surface this would seem to run into the usual problems associated with collective action, but there are clever ways they could enforce this rule.) Suddenly you can't make any transactions with the original Bitcoin blockchain anymore.

waspoza

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 508

Firstbits: 1waspoza

Quote from: Etlase2 on September 14, 2012, 09:01:17 AM

It won't be several megabytes though, it will still be huge. Spent inputs are what gets pruned, that's it.

Ah ok, i think i read somewhere about several megabytes, but it was probably some other block shrinking method.

Still, I dont think that lost coins take meaningful space to worry about. Tongue

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:43:06 AM

Yes, but even if you combine all lost unspent outputs and make only one transaction, block would be bigger by this one transaction, compared to stituation if we would do nothing at all.

Not with pruning.

Quote

I already agreed that pruned would be smaller.

It won't be several megabytes though, it will still be huge. Spent inputs are what gets pruned, that's it.

waspoza

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 508

Firstbits: 1waspoza

Quote from: Etlase2 on September 14, 2012, 08:29:50 AM

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:05:48 AM

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

Not if you combine multiple inputs to one or two outputs which is pretty standard practice. Plus you pay transaction fees for the continued health of the network.

Yes, but even if you combine all lost unspent outputs and make only one transaction, block would be bigger by this one transaction, compared to stituation if we would do nothing at all.

Quote from: Etlase2 on September 14, 2012, 08:29:50 AM

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:20:07 AM

Yes, pruned would be smaller. But correct me if im wrong, pruned chain should be several megabytes of size, so lost coins "bloatness" is negligible anyway.

Pruning removes spent inputs, it doesn't do anything to unspent outputs.

I already agreed that pruned would be smaller.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:05:48 AM

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

Not if you combine multiple inputs to one or two outputs which is pretty standard practice. Plus you pay transaction fees for the continued health of the network.

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:20:07 AM

Yes, pruned would be smaller. But correct me if im wrong, pruned chain should be several megabytes of size, so lost coins "bloatness" is negligible anyway.

Pruning removes spent inputs, it doesn't do anything to unspent outputs.

waspoza

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 508

Firstbits: 1waspoza

Quote from: gmaxwell on September 14, 2012, 08:08:17 AM

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:05:48 AM

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

The pruned blockchain gets smaller. Which is relevant.

Yes, pruned would be smaller. But correct me if im wrong, pruned chain should be several megabytes of size, so lost coins "bloatness" is negligible anyway.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 08:05:48 AM

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

The pruned blockchain gets smaller. Which is relevant.

Also, looking at the poll question again..., the distribution schedule isn't even discussed in the whitepaper.

waspoza

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 508

Firstbits: 1waspoza

Quote from: Etlase2 on September 14, 2012, 07:58:19 AM

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 07:55:42 AM

As far as I know, lost coins don't increase blockchain size in any way. Only new transactions increase blockchain size.

They don't increase the size, but they do nothing productive and are a waste of everyone's resources. As the value of coins rise, and people die or lose coins or whatever, smaller and smaller outputs will be left stuck in the chain never to be redeemed, never to be forgotten.

Still, if you "redeem" lost coins, blockchain won't get smaller because of that. Most probably it wil get even bigger.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: waspoza on September 14, 2012, 07:55:42 AM

As far as I know, lost coins don't increase blockchain size in any way. Only new transactions increase blockchain size.

They don't increase the size, but they do nothing productive and are a waste of everyone's resources. As the value of coins rise, and people die or lose coins or whatever, smaller and smaller outputs will be left stuck in the chain never to be redeemed, never to be forgotten.

waspoza

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 508

Firstbits: 1waspoza

Quote from: Etlase2 on September 13, 2012, 06:27:43 PM

Quote from: jwzguy on September 13, 2012, 06:26:22 PM

Not to mention, there is no reason to do it - because there is no need to compensate for lost coins.

There is the never-ending block chain bloat to consider.

As far as I know, lost coins don't increase blockchain size in any way. Only new transactions increase blockchain size.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Either amount of coin get more and value keeps constant, or amount of coin keeps constant and value of BTC constantly rise, obviously current BTC holder like later alternative, and most current BTC holder are those who are supporting/promoting BTC

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: FreeMoney on September 14, 2012, 12:55:46 AM

Oh, ok. You guys want to get together with my wife and I?

Hahaha. Post here ur nu-style photo and we'll think.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on September 14, 2012, 12:38:49 AM

Quote from: FreeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:26:28 PM

Quote from: julz on September 13, 2012, 10:11:47 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gmaxwell on September 13, 2012, 08:55:48 PM

... and this thread should be deleted because the OP didn't have the curtsey to offer a "No, and the OP is nuts" option. OP, do you still beat your wife?

Whoa, WTF?

Chill.. It's just the traditional loaded question example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

And we're all waiting to hear. Come on OP, avoiding the question?

I do still beat my wife. U know, we like to play different sex games... Grin

Oh, ok. You guys want to get together with my wife and I?

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: FreeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:26:28 PM

Quote from: julz on September 13, 2012, 10:11:47 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gmaxwell on September 13, 2012, 08:55:48 PM

... and this thread should be deleted because the OP didn't have the curtsey to offer a "No, and the OP is nuts" option. OP, do you still beat your wife?

Whoa, WTF?

Chill.. It's just the traditional loaded question example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

And we're all waiting to hear. Come on OP, avoiding the question?

I do still beat my wife. U know, we like to play different sex games... Grin

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

I got a weak point of my poll - it's too early for it. Most part of respondents hold their coins waiting for 1000$ price, they won't support anything but Satoshi's plan. But in few years a lot of ppl will come into Bitcoin world. They won't have motives to follow the plan and could change things completely...

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gmaxwell on September 13, 2012, 08:55:48 PM

There has not been a hard fork to the protocol. (Unless you're talking about the blockchain irrelevant checksumming of the p2p messages).

what about the 184 billion bitcoins?

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: julz on September 13, 2012, 10:11:47 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gmaxwell on September 13, 2012, 08:55:48 PM

... and this thread should be deleted because the OP didn't have the curtsey to offer a "No, and the OP is nuts" option. OP, do you still beat your wife?

Whoa, WTF?

Chill.. It's just the traditional loaded question example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

And we're all waiting to hear. Come on OP, avoiding the question?

julz

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gmaxwell on September 13, 2012, 08:55:48 PM

... and this thread should be deleted because the OP didn't have the curtsey to offer a "No, and the OP is nuts" option. OP, do you still beat your wife?

Whoa, WTF?

Chill.. It's just the traditional loaded question example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on September 13, 2012, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on September 13, 2012, 02:59:40 PM

It seems to me that u r right. So there is no way to change Bitcoin. Any changes will likely lead to a fork.

Well Bitcoin is what a majority (preferrably a near consensus super majority) say it is. There already has been one hard fork to the protocol.

There has not been a hard fork to the protocol. (Unless you're talking about the blockchain irrelevant checksumming of the p2p messages). I run several very old nodes in isolation in order to detect attacks that only work against old nodes.

On the subject of the thread: The bitcoin distribution system is brilliant. And even if it was moronic, it can't be changed. Changing it would rightfully undermine every ounce of trust in the system, it would rightfully destroy the value of bitcoin completely. If you want money that can be inflated on a whim, there are plenty of robust government issued currencies.

... and this thread should be deleted because the OP didn't have the curtsey to offer a "No, and the OP is nuts" option. OP, do you still beat your wife?

Topic: 1BR: Should the block reward be 50 BTC for ages? - page 2. (Read 6014 times)