Topic: 90 Cents is the Best Bitcoin Value - page 2. (Read 6975 times)

Now it makes sense that everything you've said is stupid.

You didn't even understand the very basic concepts of how bitcoin worked.

/endthread

Yes.  Mining generally refers to the production of something of value, and I had not looked at the Wiki page which specifically defines it as the production of blocks.  The client code is sparsely documented, and I therefore incorrectly inferred that folks were employing the term to describe the creation of new coins, particularly in light of all the analogies to gold mining.

Now can we move on?

Yes, I understand Bitcoin thoroughly.  I've coded my own client, including all the crypto.  I've been hacking Bitcoin for months.

Please don't confuse my slight misunderstanding of the terminology you employ to describe Bitcoin with a misunderstanding of the inner workings of the protocol.

They are two completely different things.

As Richard Feynmann observed, learning the name of a bird doesn't tell you anything about the bird.

I understand Bitcoin thoroughly, minor differences in terminology notwithstanding.

It was "coin generation" I meant to suggest attracted peoples attention out of proportion to its actual importance.

However, we digress from the original theme, which is how to we make Bitcoin easier for people to use, and easier for traditional merchants to accept for transactions.

I can't agree with any exact number Bitcoin should be. The market will determine that. However, I do agree that it would be easier to spend if they were less "valuable".

From a consumer point of view, I wouldn't think twice about spending digital money worth a dollar. When it starts getting on the $20-$30 level, it doesn't seem like something I want to spend impulsively.

I was about to yell "TRROOLL ALERTT!"
But i think OP seriously doesn't get it...

I see that the Wiki defines "mining" as the generation of blocks, rather than the generation of coins.

In that context, your prior post is less wrong.

This is completely wrong.  Double spending is prevented by the published hashed block chain which requires a "proof of work" for each valid block.

Mining coins has absolutely nothing to do with preventing double spending.  After all 21 million bitcoins have been mined, Bitcoin will still work fine and prevent double spending.  The only change is that the incentive for block generation will change from creating coins to redeeming transaction fees.

I for one am all in favor of a Bretton Woods II setting fixed parity for BTC and USD.


 

WHat?  I thought the only thing outside of the US was the deep dark cold of space.... At least that's what they've been telling us.

They are paper currencies, and therefore somewhat difficult to send over a wire.

If you made them digital, and employed a published transaction block chain and the cryptographic methods of Bitcoin, you would have something along the lines of what I am suggesting.

Mining seems to me to be a bit of a distraction, in that it seems to attract peoples attention out of proportion to its importance.  The most important parts of Bitcoin, in my opinion, are how it prevents double spending without a central mint, and the cryptography employed to keep coins secure and transfer them between users.

Or how about stores accept bitcoin at a lower going rate than they go for in USD? Because afterall, if bitcoins are to succeed as a currency, this means the value of bitcoins will always generally go upwords, just like gold and silver.

So they actually don't lose anything, and people using bitcoins earn somewhat of a interest overtime just for holding onto them.

Again, for stores to trust bitcoin means they trust it will last, for bitcoin to last, this means the value will always go up over time.

All of your logics fail miserably.

Life is more fun if you're never 100% serious.

I do think, however, that ever increasing Bitcoin prices and price volatility are disincentives to the wider adoption of Bitcoin for Network commerce.

There are a number of community-based alternative currencies in circulation right now, and their success revolves largely around the type of incentives I mentioned in my original post.

If the Bitcoin community doesn't address these challenges, then it is likely that some commercial fork of Bitcoin which eliminates things like mining will be the successful version of the digital currency ideas that Bitcoin embodies.

Kind of like Altavista and Google.  Or the Apple Lisa and Windows 7.

If you look at his posting history he writes about some pretty technical things, dating back to May, so he's not some newbie. I think he's just starting a hypothetical conversation in a trolling manner.

That would make much better sense.. either trolling or he is just an idiot.

Sure, and he already got mine 

But the basic idea of promoting bitcoins by a "built-in" 10% discount is intriguing.

Won't happen, but it's a nice idea after all 

A split is very hard to pull off, in a currency like bitcoin. Well, no, but there are two ways it could be done. One would be UI based, but not add any granularity, the other is based in the blockchain and would potentially break compatibility and require everyone to upgrade.

More likely everyone will rebase their clients to use microbtc or something.

I'm pretty sure he's trolling guys, he just wants attention.

I understand what your trying to do, but thats not how it works, and no one even wants it to work like that. The more "reasonable" thing to do is request that the creator of the program triple everyones amount of Bitcoins until the price is again around $1 vs. the dollar.

This would make it so that no one loses any value on their bitcoins, and like you suggested, would bring more people interested in using bitcoins, even though they still have the same damn value, but to others they may not comprehend why bitcoin is priced so high.. (which you don't seem to comprehend either but whatever)

Currency relates to the stock market and how things work, a lot of times when stocks become too high, they will do what I mentioned, double or tripple everyones stock or whatever to lower the price of each stock retaining everyones value.

Example:
$10 worth of shares = 1 stock
Give everyone double stocks and reduce price by 50%
Now everyone has 2 stocks worth $5 each

The same concept can be used with bitcoins.

This of course, would have to be agreed upon by the community, and I believe one day something like this may have to happen because I see many people turned off at the idea of having a future where we commonly trade 0.00000012 bitcoin at a time if more and more people choose to use this currency with the limit of 21 million.

That's the way the system works at present, but it could easily be modified to allow Bitcoins to be issued by a central reserve bank in return for dollars, as well as created by mining.

If we fix the value at 90 cents, then of course, we need the ability to supply as many Bitcoins as people wish to purchase.

I would be more than happy to issue imaginary Bitcoins in return for hard currency.  It's the least I can do for the Bitcoin community.  Would you like me to write some patches for the client?