Topic: $5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue - page 6. (Read 10118 times)

Why do you fear posting a question of clarification on your own forum? Do you fear the answer will back up what I'm saying?


This is pure gold! It was Daniel that created VOTE to compete with BTSX when investors paid him to maintain BTSX! He is literally talking about competing with himself!



Mechanism to keep diluting supply continuously!


So here he is reassuring investors that he won't pull this stunt again by creating a competing DAC.

Every 4 years, and price does go up after halving, as we observed after the 1st halving (price went up to $1200). But mining expense quickly catch up with the price, and the PoW mining expense quickly brings the price down if there are not enough new money coming into the eco-system.

This is why I'm saying it'll never reach $5000, because whenever price goes up a bit, mining expense will bring it down quickly. Unless there's a absolutely huge amount of new money coming in, then it might overwelm mining expense, temporarily.

Who do you think is going to get paid for these marketing and development projects in the future as well?

If it was just a merger, why do the ratios get adjusted and the quantity of tokens change? Why couldn't  consolidation happen keeping 2 billion and take a snapshot of everyone's ratio?

All you have to do is read the Initial post that I already linked to in the thread.You have great fears about reading documentation from the bitshares forum for some odd reason. Here I will copy it over for you:

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.

As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here.   Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand.    If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.

At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.

Simple answer to author of this topic. Coins mined ale halved every 5 (?) years. So price must go up simply because of that. Secondly, in 2021 which is not far from now, mining new coins will stop. With your theory price will skyrocket then.
Simple as that.

You just linked entire threads, you expecting me to find proof for you in those thread, there's nothing specifically mentioning 3% VOTE is all paid to the dev team. If this is true, then link to the post that specifically states that this is true, and I will definitely be very unhappy and post my disagreement. I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

I'm providing the proof with all the links. If you don't trust me and think that other delegates, Daniel, and moderators are lying in the links I provided just post a question and ask them directly or are you too scared to get clarification on what is clearly written.

Love your imagination, but most people just prefer not to cut off their whole leg to remove a leech, that's all.

The reason why they don't do it is because secretly or subconsciously they believe in Bitcoin long term and merely want to simultaneously pump their alt they invested into and/or get Bitcoin to mutate into behaving like their alt so they win either way. They also may fear that they can make a quick buck on their early IPO investment with some initial mommentum but ultimately it is a very risky bet because of Bitcoins network effect and thus are keeping most or a portion of holdings in bitcoin.

Their fears are correct, and ultimately it is likely they will be crushed by Bitcoin.

No, I don't trust your vivid imagination and manufactured rumors. You are dead wrong that the 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team, I hold a stake in VOTE snapshot, I'd be pretty unhappy if I don't get that stake as part of the 3%. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team.

There's no mention of 3% VOTE are entirely paid to the dev team in any of your linked thread, if there is, then link to that specific post, instead of linking entire threads and expect me to find proof for you.

If people think PoW is a 'tax' on bitcoin, then use an altcoin that already has PoW. There is no need to 'save' bitcoin from those evil PoW taxing miners. If you don't like it, take your money and your time somewhere else.

There are those of us that feel the investment in hash power has built a basis for a distributed trading economy that is far beyond the value of Bitcoin itself. And I have not yet seen a credible proof-of-stake system that solves this issue: https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/117/front-running-on-the-nxt-ae-by-trading. If you find a solution, then it might be worth talking about forking Bitcoin into Stakecoin, and you can keep your balance in both chains, and let the market sort out the winner.

Now, what I do find very compelling is the argument that block rewards should support more than just miners. As a farmer, I want everyone to be able to have enough income to buy good food, because I'll get more money if we have a guaranteed minimum income. This has convinced we need to have a cryptographic currency that distributes part of the block reward not to a foundation, but directly to people, and I attempted to (poorly) lay out a framework to do this at http://minco.me. And since there are many things about mining and farming that are the same (including that mining bitcoin and growing soybeans are both below the cost of production right now), I think it's in my best rational profit-motivated interest to promote a currency that reallocates money from the rich and elite and gives it to everyone so everyone can buy my food.

The rich and elite can then continue to whine about taxes in their ivory towns and private islands while the rest of us get on with building the crypto-economy 2.0 if we are no longer forced to use fiat currencies.

You understand that the VOTE DAC doesn't exist pre merger and that development by Daniel is being paid for by 3% of 2.5 Billion shares of the total market cap of BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS. So yes, the DNS holders can get a speck paid back out of the large capital infusion.

Its not as if VOTE has its own IPO where people can buy into it with BTC, it is automatically getting a share distribution.

What is so complicated about this?

You don't have to go by my word, why don't you ask the question to other delegates and moderators within this thread if you assume that I and they are wrong:

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

The proposed solution:

To resolve this conflict, Bytemaster proposed merging BTSX, PTS, and AGS back together into a new entity called Bitshares (BTS).  The new entity would be able to create new shares to be sold to new investors for a capital infusion, by shareholder vote, for purposes of funding the marketing campaign. Proposal was made in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.msg132495#msg132495
This is the thread you will want to read closely and think about the implications of such as written by Daniel himself.

You have so much faith in Bitshares that you don't even trust the hard facts explained by developers, moderators , and the creator in their very own forum.

That's ridiculous. You are using some small inefficiencies in the valuation of the merger, to manufacture a rumor that the dev team is somehow "paying extra" to themselves? well first you'll have to prove that what are their "current holdings"? it's BTSX or AGS or PTS or what? the dev team have a stake in all of them.

Also the fact that the dev team has offered to pay DNS holders extra, out of dev funds, has basically proved your theory is wrong. Why would they do that if their aim is to pay themselves?

Sure, but in principle there's no reason Bitcoin should ever hard fork as long as there is no 51% attack. In principle, PoS will always struggle with consensus.

If PoS developers aren't willing to address the Nothing-at-Stake problem and pretend it isn't a problem until it is, that's their problem, and anyone that's decided to jump on the bandwagon.

I wonder if there's a good psychological term for this condition where people will try to invent a really complicated system to prop up their idea without recognizing that the underlying idea is fundamentally flawed?

It's reminiscent of the Ptolemaic system.

Edit: To be fair, the Ptolemaic system actually works in it's own strange way.

The information is already available for you to figure out. You are very frustrating to talk to because you are resisting every step of the way and I have to keep re-explaining it and providing more and more evidence. I don't think you are stupid but certainly have some sort of psychological block on negative information concerning Bitshares and thus have an inability to think critically about this topic.

I will help you a bit more:
Take BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS current market caps /divided by the amount of shares and log that into account.

Investors should than determine the current value of their assets before the merger.

Now take the total market cap of BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS and divide it by 2.5 billion to determine the new value of all these tokens post merger. Using your own values :


Determine the current valuation of everones stake.

The bottom line is the developers and invictus have designed the ratio distribution in relation to inflating the monetary supply where their current holdings will increase in value and others will lose value.

You don't need me to do the basic math for you too, do you?

Bitcoin has had no accidental hardfork? don't be ridiculous. As I explained before, NAS is fictional. Actually, when I think about it, I haven't seen any accidental hardfork in a PoS system. It must be due to the non-existent NAS problem. lol

During the gold rush, the supply of gold was probably increasing 10% per year. (I don't have hard figures readily available.)

For the bank thing, I was making a reference to  the [prediction] Next spike $560,000 14 months from now thread in speculation -- that prediction assumes a final Bitcoin price of $300,000.


(Bold mine)

Um no. The point is specifically about Distributed Consensus, which has to do with hard forks. Because of the Nothing-at-Stake problem, PoS always runs the risk of hard forking. I'm not particularly comfortable with that.

Whatever they are used for, it's manually hardcoded by developers, YES? case closed, thank you

I still don't understand what are you saying, are you saying VOTE's 3% is entirely paid to the dev team? because that's certainly not the case. You'll need to show me where are the "extra pay" to dev team coming from. Not just regurgitating things that I already know.