..it enables one to do ...things...
isn't that the whole point?
or the other way around: isn't it the whole point of a decentralized currency to
not enable
one to rule it all?
1) No, the point is to create a system which limits minting opportunities in an systematic mathematically reliable manner. That's why my little fun-d is less noxious that "protection racket in the blockchain". I had one, and only one, opportunity to premine - system will never give me another such opportunity.
Now, if I had a pseudo-tax, the system would have been given me a bunch of coins generated by other people's hardware and electricity with every block, no matter what
Know what? You can even have cryptocurrencies where only Select Few have the right to mine and can have cryptographic voting as to whether include or expunge someone from the Select Few (Coinhunter, I am giving this idea away fo' freeeeee
)
2) Being able to hire programmers, organize PR (that is, if I can convince myself to abandon the "do not spam twitter" principle which I so far am not successful at), and run a phat laundry is hardly really a case of where one can "
rule it" (all or part).
Now, if I could decide who mines and who does not, that would be a case of "rulership", but I can't be bothered to mess with such a tricky system
given that in fact, the existence of the fund was both explicitly stated in first post and in the config, I am somewhat surprised that you have missed something that was never concealed in the first place.
in the first post you should not mention the existence of the fund but also it's size - that would be transparent
Technically, the fund is specified in the config, so it's not particularly hidden, and besides we seem to have reached the agreement that the amount of premining that is "proper" is an intractable issue.
The only answers are either "no premining at all" (and thus no fund-shmund, period), or whatever "feels right" which is bellyfeel-based decision making approach (and since we have different bellies, we will have a hard time coming to agreement as to how much is too far, and when does one's grasp exceed grasp
)
is it possible to modify the client so that it considers all coins from block #1 invalid?
No, but it is possible to put coins into a faucet so that they can not be touched by the voracious Lolcust and slowly trickle down onto the late-adopters.
If you consider faucet donation of 1.5 mil to be
insufficiently fair, I would like to hear what fund size would you consider appropriate - after all, I might agree and donate more to the faucet (though it will cut into my laundry side-project, making me quite a sad panda
)