alcuni brani interessanti
My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an
educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is
going it's locked in and we're stuck with it. I wanted to pick
something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but
without knowing the future, that's very hard. I ended up picking
something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it'll be
worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being
used for some fraction of world commerce, then there's only going to be
21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per
unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is
represented internally as 100000000. There's plenty of granularity if
typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro,
then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed,
so if you had 1 Bitcoin it's now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is
displayed as 1.
Historically, people have taken up scarce commodities as money, if
necessary taking up whatever is at hand, such as shells or stones. Each
has a kernel of usefulness that helped bootstrap the process, but the
monetary value ends up being much more than the functional value alone.
Most of the value comes from the value that others place in it. Gold,
for instance, is pretty, non-corrosive and easily malleable, but most of
its value is clearly not from that. Brass is shiny and similar in
colour. The vast majority of gold sits unused in vaults, owned by
governments that could care less about its prettiness.
Until now, no scarce commodity that can be traded over a communications
channel without a trusted third party has been available. If there is a
desire to take up a form of money that can be traded over the Internet
without a TTP, then now that is possible.
Satoshi
> The last thing we need is to deploy a system designed to burn all
> available cycles, consuming electricity and generating carbon dioxide,
> all over the Internet, in order to produce small amounts of bitbux to
> get emails or spams through.
>
> Can't we just convert actual money in a bank account into bitbux --
> cheaply and without a carbon tax? Please?
Ironic if we end up having to choose between economic liberty and
conservation.
Unfortunately, proof of work is the only solution I've found to
make p2p e-cash work without a trusted third party. Even if I
wasn't using it secondarily as a way to allocate the initial
distribution of currency, PoW is fundamental to coordinating the
network and preventing double-spending.
If it did grow to consume significant energy, I think it would
still be less wasteful than the labour and resource intensive
conventional banking activity it would replace. The cost would be
an order of magnitude less than the billions in banking fees that
pay for all those brick and mortar buildings, skyscrapers and junk
mail credit card offers.
Satoshi
