Topic: 25 BTC per block forever? (Read 4983 times)

I think that just about wraps this up then.

And the A chain holders can sell all their B chain coins too. It works both ways. I already mentioned that in the Cracking the Code thread.

BurtW, I doubt you will need to wait more than about 3 - 6 months to notice something much more attractive than Bitcoin. Others may notice much sooner than you. I have a reason to be confident; I'm in the drivers seat and control the destiny to a large extent.

And then sell all the coins on the new Chain back to Amazon, or some poor dilusional sap, increasing your Bitcoin holdings even further at the expense of the new chain. Yep


I am almost tempted to bet against him for that one. Though I think just being proven wrong will be painful enough, especially for someone so convinced he can not be wrong no matter what anyone says.

Well in summary I think we can all agree:

Anyone can create an alternate coin with any properties they want (constant reward, variable reward, growing reward, shorter block times, longer block times, etc.)

They can create this new alternate coin with or without the current Bitcoin history.

A cartel, government or individual can create and market any alt coin they want to.  Theoretically they could do a better marketing job than Bitcoin and even become more popular than Bitcoin.

A miner can choose which transactions to include and which transactions to not include in their blocks.  If they systematically refuse certain transactions over others then the transactions that get refuse can be delayed.  Miners are not even required to put any transactions in their blocks if they do not want to.

Anyone that thinks that Bitcoin is fatally flawed is welcome to sell all their BTC and create and market their own coins.

Bitcoin is a pretty successful experiment so far.

AnonyMint is very convinced of his position and he is not going to change it.

A lot of us are not convinced by any of his points to date.

Time will tell who is actually right - and we won't have to wait that long to find out:

And some will simply ignore the fact that 0-confirmation transactions will likely be the norm, or that people would trust a well established financial system over a gimmicky, centralized, and extremely limited new one run by a private company.
Some also don't realize that simply posting links to everything in their posts, with said links not actually answering anything the links claim to answer, will eventually get their links completely ignored, and their arguments be reduced to "But I did defend my point! Honest! Trust me!" which will basically make the person's arguments seem childish and incomplete.

I would say that some should really try to actually explain their counterpoints, instead of resorting to repeating the same points by linking to them, ignoring the fact that those points are the ones being refuted. Saying "A", hearing "but so and so counters A, so it's B," and replying with "You're wrong, because here's a link to A" makes one sound rather idiotic.

But, this obviously won't matter, because no matter how much you try to refute some people's points by pointing out the flaws in their assumptions and theories, they will claim


and will continue to link to their original claim, as if it's somehow possible to refute the criticism of their original point by simply repeating their original point over and over.

Some are likely to forget some of the details I presented in the Cracking the Code thread, e.g. that A coin can set a new protocol for block period thus reducing the time to for example 2.5 minutes or perhaps even 1 minute.

They are likely to forget numerous others points that I made about why convergence to the B coin would be very unlikely. They are likely to make summaries that ignore those numerous points.

And I am not going to retype all those points I already made in the other thread.

And they are also likely to forget basic economics facts such that Bitcoin is not a deflationary coin, it is Ponzi-bubble. And they are likely to forget the math of the Quantity Theory of Money and our experience from the 1800s that a constant money supply has nothing to do with deflation.

These sort of people are allergic to math and facts.

---

I don't feel like digging to find the links to support math and arguments for the above assertions. So I will just quote myself a post that contains the links.

If Cartel has 51% or even 60% of mining power, the decision all users will be faced with will be:

Join Chain A, which will have slightly less than 20 minute transaction time for the next 4 weeks, and submit yourself to a new alt-coin and the whims of a single cartel that may continuously debase your currency through inflation
Join Chain B, which will have slightly more than 20 minute transaction time for the next 4 weeks, and remain the decentralized, deflationary Bitcoin.

Considering that most day-to-day transactions will typically be done with 0 confirmations anyway, the 10 to 20 minute confirmation difference won't matter much, and rational risk-averse people, and especially ones with established wealth, will stick with the well known and established Chain B. Anyone who has any sort of hardware bitcoiin wallet or a POS system will stick with Chain B by default, as well. Frankly, most Chain B people won't even notice that something like Chain A even exists.

However, this will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, because when it comes to listening to counterarguments on this forum,


is a perfect description of AnonyMint's modus operandi.

Easy solution: spend BTCC coins to yourself, in a pure TX containing only BTCC coins.

Result: You now own BTCA and BTCB coins in equal amounts as you had BTTC ones, effectively allowing you to spend them separately on both forks.

I don't know why you are trying to spin what I wrote into a meaning which is not what I wrote.

I explained clearly that it delays transactions for everyone who against the attacker, thus it is motivation to move to chain A. I do not characterize that as "help secure B chain". That illustrates to all the insecurity of the B chain.

I asked you to tell me if there was anything more to this attack vector.  You have not added anything except the fact that the cartel can help secure the B chain by hashing for them.

So far the bottom line is that there would be two chains and two coins and the market would decide how to value and use each of them.  After this attack Bitcoin remains and there is simply another alt coin - there is nothing more to say unless I have not captured your concern.

If I have not then please let me know exactly what additional assumption would need to be added to the OP.

It is when I am a Amazon and I put all my transactions in and never the any vendor is not in our cartel. And when my excess is significant than all transactions for non-Amazon customers get significantly delayed.


As I explained in the Cracking the Code thread that is an oversimplification of the impact. And I don't want to repeat myself.

If the A chain cartel/attacker uses any of their hashing power to produce valid blocks for the B chain then, by definition, it is not an attack at all.  Any miner, not just the A chain cartel miners, can include whatever valid BTCB transactions they see fit into their valid B chain blocks.  This includes the option to not include any transactions at all in their blocks.

You cannot seriously consider the use of hashing power to create valid B chain blocks by the A chain cartel an attack.

Also we have shown up thread that a split in the blockchain cannot really be considered an attack.  It is simply the creation of an alternate coin.  Once the BTCC coins are exhausted you are just left with the BTCA and BTCB coins.  BTCA is just another in a growing number of alternatives to the original Bitcoins.

The OP is a subset of the attack I described in the Cracking the Code thread.

It doesn't include the attacker using excess (of 50%) hash power to attack the B chain with valid blocks and delaying transactions in the B chain for example.

I am exhausted of writing in the forums, so I will not provide an exhaustive review at least not at this time. The thread is useful as it is.

BTCguild and GigaHash have over 50% of the network combined.  What do you mean its not possible, how do you know they are not the same company?  A couple months ago BTCguild had an "accidental" >50% and magically was down to 35% the next day..

Disagree.

1. ASICs are a scarce resource and relatively centralized resource (e.g. as compared to DRAM or CPUs) that could be dominated by the government or collusion with or of a cartel.

2. As coin rewards diminish closer to zero (e.g. <1% per annum 2033 <0.2% 2040) the size of the network hash rate will be driven by transactions fees. If transaction fees are too large, we discourage transactions which are needed to give Bitcoin an intrinsic value and we enable the Transactions Withholding Attack which enables pernicious cartel takeover from a low level such as 15%. If we minimize transaction fees we make the hash rate too small relative to the value of Bitcoin's market cap (incentive for attacker) or the value of Bitcoin may shrink because apparently the value of Bitcoin is correlated to the aggregate cost of the hash rate as gold is correlated to the aggregate cost of all mining.

I have firmly established to my satisfaction that Bitcoin is doomed because of the decision to rely on transaction fees instead of perpetual coin rewards.

Perpetual coin rewards are superior in every way, including that 5% per annum increases in money supply have nothing to do with inflation. Bitcoiners need to educate themselves. They can start with the prior link and at the following threads:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3775043

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ideas-for-more-efficient-distribution-of-money-342848

Prob is ppc xpm are dynamic rewards which gives incentive for volatility... Need stability. Constact block generation is needed. As population demand increases this creates deflation overtime linked to real growth.

This is a point I tried to make in another thread, everyone that has C coins can spend them on both networks.  Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this work:

Take 1 BTCA, 1 BTCB and 100 BTCC.  Now create the two transacions:

Inputs:  1 BTCA + 100 BTCC; Outputs: 101 BTCA is valid on the A network, dropped on the B network

Inputs:  1 BTCB + 100 BTCC; Outputs: 101 BTCB is valid on the B network, dropped on the A network

So I started with 102 coins and ended up with 202 coins.

I have noticed a lot of recent alts have a minimum 1 coin per block in the long run, and also PeerCoin always had the 1% generation.

this may be a happy medium.....though for BTC to fork to this now would bring it all down like a house of cars as the story is $21 million ever.

Thus BTC may bootstrap another alt into supremacy, or in 75 years then it may fork to 1 coin per block

Yes, eventually assuming all "c coins" were spent.  As long as outputs prior to the fork remain unspent they could continue to be spent on either (or both) networks.

Great point and the reason I started this thread!  So eventually all the BTCC will get used up and you would end up with only BTCA and BTCB coins.