Topic: [ANN][CAGE] CAGECOIN REVIVAL: New difficulty algorithm, network moving again! - page 18. (Read 68746 times)

Anyway the Cagecoin burn starts in a little over 24 hours. 

Send a private message to this account with the number of CAGE you're burning, and your NXT address.  (Don't use a NXT deposit address from an exchange.)  Then send your CAGE to the burn address. 

The burn address is:   DUUhXNEw1bNAMSKgm1Kt2tSPWdzF8952Np

When your transaction shows up with confirmations on the block explorer, we will send your BARR to your NXT account.

You will receive 1 BARR for every 500,000 CAGE you burn, which is .00000200 BARR per CAGE.

The number is a fraction of a hair under 21,000,000. Don't be stupid.

We're not talking about what it 'might' be in the future, we are talking about what it is programmed to be right now.

If you run this in Python, you will find that the number will not be 21,000,000, and that's according to the code you posted.

It can't be defined in the code as two different numbers, and you keep saying a number that is incorrect, and therefore you are incorrect about what the code says. 

I'll wait while you run that program (lol).

Anyway all that is irrelevant, because you're talking about what the supply of bitcoins might be in the future.  Nothing you're saying has anything to do with how many bitcoins exist right now. 

int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
    int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;

    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210000 blocks, which will occur approximately every 4 years
    nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}



Code is designed to do exactly what it is coded to do. It's not hard to come to the conclusion that using the above formula puts the total coin count to 21,000,000.

As I said before, the coins are there and are only given out when certain conditions are met, aka mining and other variables.

The blockchain has to abide by the code set forth above.

Everyone but you understands that there are a total of 21 million BTC.

In case you didn't know, there is a difference between total supply and available supply, use google if this is too hard for you to understand.

So you have no clue how to answer the question.  It's okay to admit you're wrong and have no answer.







You're such an expert that you're quoting the Wikipedia article about Bitcoin.  That is sad.

Why not post the code that sets the number of coins?  
How about the code that created the 21 million coins and keeps them locked away, where is that code?



Since Wikipedia is your source of information about Bitcoin, look at this quote from the same Wikipedia entry you quoted:



According to Wikipedia, which is your chosen source of information, any and every bitcoin in existence is on the blockchain.

If it's not on the blockchain, it didn't happen.  If coins aren't on the blockchain, they don't exist.


And again: 




That's pretty clear.  It says all bitcoins in existence come from mining rewards.  Therefore, 21 million coins don't exist.

Please show us 21 million bitcoins on the blockchain, or admit that all those coins aren't on the blockchain and therefore don't exist.

You're so full of shit it isn't even funny.


Programming isn't always perfect and bugs do pop up and get corrected.

So you mean to tell me that BTC does not have a total coin supply of 21,000,000 coins even though it is programmed to have that many? My mind is truly blown, here I thought for all these years that the entire BTC community knew what they were talking about regarding the total amount of BTC.

Being a developer myself I must be a really shitty one if I somehow managed to misread the code used to create BTC. I must be an even dumber person after taking university classes that taught me how BTC operates and functions.

Just because nobody owns the rest doesn't mean they don't exist. Certain conditions have to be met in order to unlock access to those coins.

And is there anyone else in the world who agrees with you, that the market cap is $12 billion?







How do they exist?  They can't be used as capital, and they're not on the market, so in what way can they be counted as market capitalization?

Total BTC - 21,000,000
Market Value - $608.1
Market Cap - $12,770,100,000

You can't seem to grasp that there are a total of 21,000,000 BTC, not 15,862,536. Just because a small portion of those 'shares' are not owned right now doesn't mean they don't exist.

I am not wrong. There is a max total of 21,000,000 BTC, a market cap is the total amount of shares offered by a company * it's value. In this case that company is a piece of property called BTC which offers a total of 21,000,000 shares in all.

Whether this concept is beyond your grasp or not is beside the point. The simple fact of the matter is there are 21,000,000 BTC. Just because someone doesn't own a small portion of them yet doesn't mean they don't exist.

You will not win this, I'm not one of the many ignorant folks who inhabit this forums that eats up other peoples bullshit.

Actually it would increase by about $15.8 million, and only if nobody else was buying and selling. 

Would you like me to explain it to you, or do you like being wrong?

You assume that there is $9B worth of BTC but you don't seem to understand that market caps are not accurate nor are they anywhere close to being accurate. They are an estimated worth, nothing more and have no financial ground to stand on.

For example, someone could sell 0.00000001 BTC for $1 higher than ask price and bang, BTC market cap just increased by $21,000,000. You should choose a different approach instead of using fantasy numbers and trying to use them as fact.

One problem with your theory there is the fact that the altcoins are even more useless than Bitcoin.

Another obvious fact would be that there is $9 Billion worth of Bitcoin and $2 Billion worth of altcoins...so there's no way for altcoins to be the major use for Bitcoin.  There aren't enough altcoins to spend that much Bitcoin on.  Therefore, people are buying Bitcoin mostly for other uses.

Bitcoin is itself an altcoin.. It was not the first and wasn't the last. E-Cash was the first cryptocurrency created by DigiCash and was actually used by banks. BTC didn't come around until 10 years after E-Cash failed.

Without a use for something it is worthless. Altcoins give BTC more of a use than anything else as you need to obtain the BTC used to buy the altcoins. This is basic economics and should easily be understood by anyone who has gone through high school.

I think it's the opposite, since those altcoins didn't exist until Bitcoin gained value by itself.

Yeah, and a lot of coins depend on 1 person.  But that 1 person will eventually quit no matter what happens.  If he sells his bags, if he swaps to BARR, if he dies, or if he spends the next 10 years dedicated to Biebercoin before he finally gets sick of losing money - the coin will die, one way or another.

As for killing coins to raise the worth of others, it's more than that.  We do want to decrease the overall number of altcoins, but we're preserving the value of the coins we absorb.  So we're not exactly killing them.  Since BARR only comes from burning altcoins, the value of BARR comes from the value of those altcoins.  If you mined Cagecoin for 2 years with a GPU, and then you burn those coins to get BARR, then your GPU earned that BARR for you.  All the work you did (and Proof of Work) survives, because you're basically moving those coins to a new blockchain.

And it's not just to elevate some coins over others - we want to decrease the number of coins so the crypto markets can just survive.  There are only so many people who will put money into crypto, and their money is limited.  When an altcoin dies, that money is destroyed.  It literally destroys capital and takes it out of the crypto ecosystem.  Crypto cannot continue like this, because the money gets spread paper-thin, and then the money just slowly loses its value down to nothing.  It would be like the stock market crashing every month - people would lose their houses, businesses would go under, and the economy would collapse.

 If there were no altcoins, Bitcoin's price would probably be $2000 right now.  But everyone's money is split into a thousand other coins.  And those coins continue to lose value, and they continue to die every day.  And it continues to hurt Bitcoin and crypto in general.

Ethereum raised $18 Million in their pre-sale, and then they held that bitcoin until it was only worth $9 Million.  They lost $9 Million.  Where did that money go?  Nobody got it, but it disappeared.  They lost, but nobody else gained.  And that's what happens to 90% of altcoins, except they never rebound.  Capital destruction led to the Great Depression, and the recent housing market crash, when loans weren't repaid and that money on the books just disappeared.  Coinmarketcap says there's $12 Billion on the markets, including all coins;  how many billions of those dollars are in altcoins that won't survive?  Can the crypto markets afford to lose $1 Billion out of $12 Billion?  I think at least that much will disappear with dying altcoins, and I think it would be enough to ruin the entire industry. 

So half the altcoins just disappear, but the other problem is the ones that keep going, struggling to survive, with people putting more time and money into a losing coin because they already have so much invested in their bags.  With 5 people, a dying coin can limp on forever, taking up room on the markets, trying to get new investors to dump their bags on.  That's why there are 800 coins on Coinmarketcap (after they've already delisted over a thousand).  And out of those 800, you've never heard of about 750 of them. 

So before these altcoins lose all their value, that value can be rescued and transferred into BARR.  Instead of 100 struggling blockchains that barely work, each with 5 users refusing to let go and lose everything, we can give them a way to let go without losing everything.  We can take those 5 users from 100 coins and have 1 coin with 500 users. 

I understand. What I meant by hostile is in reference to the possibility to revive the coin after.

If those that have the biggest stake in a coin no longer have that stake then they would no longer be interested in the project itself which wouldn't be a positive effect in the long run.

I'll use you in an example, lets say that you buy $5,000 worth of HTML5coin and just hold it but the coin is slowly dying. It would be in your best interest financially to insure that your investment isn't wasted so you would try to do everything in your power to prevent this.

But, I come along and offer you a way out that you take without hesitation. That would mean the project has just lost part of its chances for success as you would no longer be interested in seeing the project succeed.

Overall it would effectively destroy support for the project person by person until only those who can't really afford to help the project along are left which would be the final death of the coin. This is why the coins you have done this to in the past revert back to the way they were. The support they did have is now gone.