Topic: A new better bitcoin - capital coin - page 2. (Read 3964 times)

Is this a shill thread or i am imagining things? 

Just stone the non believer

Its not "nothing" its back by lightweight assets.  These lightweight assets are its strength not weakness.  It is highly adaptable vs assets which take greater management.

Someone will have to build a better lightweight system to displace BTC.

what problem do you have with deflation ?

bitcoin has plenty of other uses apart from being a store of value, much more so than gold actually.

again, money does not need backing. bitcoin is money. a capital coin is stupid. you can issue shares of a corporation with colored coins. but "backing" a coin to the economy of a corporation? stupid

:35 gold has value because that is what someone is willing to pay for it.
1:20 what he is saying is true, unless somethig that comes along is better.  A capital coin or one the inflates the least is best.  If you can actually delete coins, better.  The only way you are going to get 10% + deletion is via using your coins value as capital.


4:25 it needs to be scarce, is not deflating even better?
5:30 there are other metals too copper, gold might be worthless in 5,000 years once we start mining moon.
6:13 one think gold is better that bitcoin, gold is a commodity and has other uses like filling in your teeth.  If bitcoin owned disneyland, we could get free tickets.

I think you need to watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKkfhi8Eaiw&

Money doesn't have to be backed by anything.

Just thought I would show you the power of a capital coin.

1. Use the proceeds to buy mining equipment.  
2. Convert the mined coins to bitcoin and buy your coin with them and delete them.

Example of game plan

1000 (Mining Coin) to 1 BTC
Suppose you obtain 300 BTC
Use money to buy $150,000 worth of mining equipment

30x3 = 100 Th on ebay kncminer
Delete over 1-2 BTC worth of coin a day.

It's not about making a everlasting currency it is using the best option available.  The current banking model is so flawed it not funny and people have been, currently are and will be suffering because of it.  The removal of power from a centralized entity far out weighs the fact that Bitcoin isn't a perfect currency that will someday fail.

Shouldnt this be in the altcoin forum? 

Like a hamster on a wheel when they get off there is nothing.

I changed the title.  Capital coin involves no software.  Thus a non-profit could be use to provide funding to deletion, the bitcoin foundation, and as a mining reward if it gets too small.

BTC is not backed by nothing. It's backed by hundreds and thousands of miners.

I am a strong supporter of bitcoin, I just found a another mousetrap.  In many ways by posts on alt, led to some of the ideas of NXT and Ripple.   Go look back at my old old posts.  Bitcoin does not have to be involved in the new coin and I expect someone within a year will start a capital coin.  One I may actually buy.  Bitcoin can still be used like Warren Buffett uses the dollar.

Imagine a motel chain and resturant owned by a coin, giving you a 50% discount as a shareholder if you use the coin to pay for the room or meal.

only regulation can damage bitcoin

So OP, why dont you sell your Hero account for 1 BTC, cash out now and never come back then, if BTC is doomed? 

I thought I would offer a mythical game plan to convert bitcoin to a capital coin.  Equity or business coin might be a better term, but the definition of Henry George where only material things like a cow, mill, or factory is true capital fits best.  Many of these new alt coins try to do too much.  A coin should not be doing assets, used for sending info, or have multiple chains on it.

The base coin may still be bitcoin (or a nothing coin) as you can easily have an auto selling.  Bitcoin will always have some value.

1.  Offer an exchange rate of 1000:1 for bitcoin to the new coin I think we can use the popular meme coin dogecapcoin.  This offer should be good for 2 years or so.
2.  As transfers occur, the bitcoin is converted into dollars and global conglomerate Coca Cola might be good for marketing.
3.  1% equity plus the dividend will be used for deletion.  Thus about 3.91%.  This is if KO is used.
4. 5% of this pool will be used to fund the dogecapcoin foundation.  Preferable try to attract the big names like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen to the foundation with big salaries.
5. 95% will go to the deletion of dogecapcoin, the coin is bought randomly and sent to a void address.  dogecapcoin equity group would control the investments and deletion, however there might only be one stock KO.
6. The reason for KO is once the ownership becomes large enough we can start to get jobs at KO and possibly board seats.
7.  We could have enough power to change the Coca Cola logo to the doge meme.
8. As said before the infrastructure is built around bitcoin, thus there is no need to change it.  Just an automated exchange that converts DCC to BTC to dollars to buy whatever.
9. Set the transaction fee rather high maybe 0.01 to give miners a reward, possibly in a merged mined POS.  If the fee is too high some of it can be deleted.

note: If you have assets you can also peg a nothing coin and profit off the volatility.

note: if bitcoin is $500 and you convert 1 BTC for 1000 dogecapcoins, they should be worth $0.50.  Notes as the deletion starts since there is no or similar mining rewards to bitcoin, the value of dogecapcoin should exceed bitcoin.  It would then be a no brainer to convert.  As you could convert say a $500 bitcoin for $600 worth of dogecapcoins with no risk.   Most likely you would have to because BTC would be dropping in price.

note: KO is only an example, you could probably buy a stock where you could end up owning majority and even own the whole thing.

note: this could also be a good way to clean out the blockchain.

Bitcoin is not buisness. Bitcoin is money. You dont eat money. you eat what you can buy for money.

This is not necessarily true. Bitcoin is secured by cryptography, not backed by it. Nothing and no one backs bitcoin.

It is not a guarantee that people will continue to use bitcoin as a medium of exchange. People use it as one today because it is a system that people can use to buy things and pay people without having to trust anyone holding their money.

When you buy a bitcoin what are you getting for your money?  You only are getting some digits.  If you buy gold coin you are getting gold, a commodity or wealth.  bitcoin does not meet the definition of wealth below.  It only has value, like the dollar as a collectible.  The equity coin I propose is similar to bitcoin, but it has one thing different a constant buying of the equity coin by the profits of the equity it represents.


http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp2.htm

Many of the ambiguities about capital derive from ambiguities in the use of the inclusive term wealth. In common use, wealth means anything having an exchange value. When used as an economic term, however, it must be limited to a much more definite meaning.

If we take into account the concept of collective or general wealth, we see that many things we commonly call wealth are not so at all. Instead, they represent the power to obtain wealth in transactions between individuals (or groups). That is, they have an exchange value. However, their increase or decrease does not affect the sum of wealth in the community. Therefore, they are not truly wealth.

Some examples are stocks, bonds, mortgages, promissory notes, or other certificates for transferring wealth. Neither can slaves be considered wealth. Their economic value merely represents the power of one class to appropriate the earnings of another. Lands or other natural opportunities obtain exchange value only from consent to an exclusive right to use them. This merely represents the power given to landowners to demand a share of the wealth produced by those who use them.

Increase in the amount of bonds, mortgages, or notes cannot increase the wealth of the community, since that community includes those who pay as well as those who receive. Slavery does not increase the wealth of a people, for what the masters gain the enslaved lose. Rising land values do not increase the common wealth, as whatever landowners gain by higher prices, tenants or purchasers lose in paying them.

All this relative wealth is undistinguished from actual wealth in legislation and law, as well as common thought and speech. Yet with the destruction of nothing more than a few drops of ink and a piece of paper, all this "wealth" could be utterly annihilated. By an act of law, debts may be canceled, slaves emancipated, land made common property. Yet the aggregate wealth would not be diminished at all — for what some would lose others would gain. Wealth was not created when Queen Elizabeth graced her favorite courtiers with profitable monopolies, nor when Boris Godunov declared Russian peasants to be property.

The term wealth, when used in political economy, does not include all things having an exchange value. It includes only those things that increase the aggregate wealth when produced or decrease it when destroyed. If we consider what these things are and what their nature is, we will have no difficulty defining wealth.

We speak of a community increasing its wealth. For instance, we say that England increased its wealth under Queen Victoria, or that California is wealthier than when it belonged to Mexico. By saying this, we do not mean there is more land or natural resources. We do not mean some people owe more debts to others. Nor do we mean there are more people. To express that idea, we speak of an increase in population — not wealth.

What we really mean is there was an increase of certain tangible goods — things that have an actual, not merely a relative, value. We mean buildings, cattle, tools, machinery, agricultural and mineral products, manufactured goods, ships, wagons, furniture, and the like. More of such things is an increase in wealth; less of them is a decrease in wealth. We would say the community with the most of such things, in proportion to its population, is the wealthiest.

What is the common characteristic of these things? They all consist of natural substances that have been adapted by human labor for human use. Wealth, then, may be defined as natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion to fit them for the gratification of human desires. Their value depends on the amount of labor that, on average, would be required to produce things of like kind. In other words, it is labor impressed upon matter so as to store up the power of human labor to satisfy human desires, as the heat of the sun is stored in coal.

Wealth is not the sole object of labor, for labor is also expended to directly satisfy human desires. Wealth is the result of what we may call productive labor — that is, labor that gives value to material things. Wealth does not include anything nature supplies without human labor. Yet the result of labor is not wealth unless it produces a tangible product that satisfies human desires.

Capital is wealth devoted to a certain purpose. Therefore, nothing can be considered capital that does not fit within the definition of wealth.

But though all capital is wealth, all wealth is not capital. Capital is only a particular part of wealth — that part devoted to aid production. We must draw a line between wealth that is capital and wealth that is not capital. If we keep this in mind, we can eliminate misconceptions that have led even gifted thinkers into a maze of contradiction.

When I read "Bitcoin is backed by nothing", I immediately stop further reading. Bitcoin is backed by cryptography and will of the people to use it as a medium of exchange.