Pages:
Author

Topic: Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake - page 6. (Read 16632 times)

sr. member
Activity: 365
Merit: 251
You are not making any sense. In your model, there is no work that the "PoS" does.
The PoS does require some work to validate transactions; it's just a lot less work without the proof of work requirement. So forgers (what NXT calls the validators; it doesn't like to use the word "miners") still need a reward, but it can be a much lower one.

Quote
So all coin creation serves only to inflate the value of all coins.
Coin creation devalues existing coins through inflation whatever the system. Arguably, PoW requires more inflation because the miners are doing more work and so need higher rewards than mere transaction fees can give them (at least while the currency is young, transaction volumes are low and the capital value is low).

Quote
Is there anyone in the thread who knows what he is talking or do I have to conclude that all "PoS" is smoke and mirrors?
Part of the problem is that there are multiple PoS systems. I, for example, know NXT somewhat better than I know PeerCoin. I get the impression people are assuming features of one coin or another are inherent to PoS, even if they aren't.

And I'm very far from an expert on NXT. I hope you don't conclude that all PoS is smoke and mirrors just because people in one thread aren't expert.
sr. member
Activity: 365
Merit: 251
SlipperySlope reported in his PoS alt-coin development thread that a bitcoin core dev said this:

The problems to address as viewed by a member of the developers email list . . .

Quote
The problem with proof of stake is essentially that there is no cost to
creating a proof-of-stake.

...

The problem is what wrecked Peercoin, which I understand is now
centralized (all blocks are signed by the developers to be valid). ]

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but it sounds like the fact that shares are free to create caused a problem that forced Peercoin to become centralized around the developers who sign each block to be valid.  So in essence, these developers are the "Central Bank of Peercoin."
This is referring to a rather technical problem with PoS. The basis of PoS is that mining a block be expensive, with the cost in coin-days. The problem is that they only pay that cost if their mining attempt is successful, because the transaction that takes away their coin-days is effectively part of the block they mined. This means it is free to mine blocks that aren't included in the block-chain. So a rational miner would mine new blocks for the longest chain, but also mine blocks for shorter chains in the faint hope that the shorter chain somehow becomes the longest and that the miner gets some advantage when it does. And this in turn means that there are a lot of long forks floating around, and the system isn't doing a very good job of establishing consensus.

It's a big problem with PoS, that needs to be solved or else the system isn't viable. However, it's not accurate to say that "shares are free to create". They are only free if they aren't actually created.
sr. member
Activity: 365
Merit: 251
If SlipperySlope succeeds in releasing his PoS spin-off with pre-mine proportional to the bitcoin unspent outputs, and if he has agreements in place with various crypto-exchanges prior to launch, and if the launch is well-advertised, what will happen?

All bitcoin users will instantly be awarded an equal number of bitshares.  On the exchanges, bitshares will trade directly against bitcoins.  If you have 10 BTC in your Cryptsy account, Cryptsy could credit you instantly with 10 BTS for free.  That's what PoS is: shares created without any work requirement.
No, getting the coins for free happens because of the spin-off idea of basing the initial distribution of coins on a snap-shot of the Bitcoin block chain. Any altcoin that uses spin-off will give free coins, even if it uses PoW.

Similarly, the altcoins that have an initial allocation based on, eg, Icelandic or Scottish citizenship also give free coins, and again it has nothing to do with whether the currency is based on PoS or PoW. The initial distribution has to come from somewhere. It's always going to be controversial.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Is there a thread where we could talk about the interesting concepts of distributing the currency (assuming that the network security is a non-issue)? For example:

Satoshi gets 100,000 units of the new currency. Everybody that applies for his share after him gets an ever-declining amount. No new currency creation, only way to amass it is to buy in open market.


The idea of IPO or one-week premine just does not fly, because nobody would have the incentive to join the system where random blokes own all the money and others have to buy it from them. Bitcoin's mining schedule is pretty much perfect in this sense.

Have 100% premine and then sell the entire supply at 1 satoshi per coin until the initial supply is fully distributed. Then give proceeds to charity or something.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).

Creating a bitcoin spin-off is unethical because you are giving away most of the value to the already rich bitcoin early adopters.
Creating entire money supply out of thin air and give to the early adopters is ok but i think the best solution would be to launch an Etherum style IPO to raise money for developing and promoting the project.

Shares are not currency. (Oh my. In the "ancient times" 100 years ago a banker would need to know the difference between a mortgage and a real bill, since the former was not currency but the latter was. Now people are in all seriousness propagating shares as currency  Tongue Embarrassed )


I don't know what you are talking about. I propose to do an IPO for initial distribution and you tell me that i don't know the difference between shares and currency, are you drunk?

Hang out here a little longer and you see the problem with the IPO has been discussed, the premises is Bitcoin distribution is unfair so an IPO would be fair except it's unfair for those who didn't here about the IPO
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).
-Airdrop it to current BTC holders

(Peter R's spinoff proposition, which is awesome imho).

This is a very bad idea why rewarding Bitcoin early adopters even more? And i'm sure most of them don't give a shit about this project and they will rush for dumping their Bitcoin PoS as soon as they can.


Because the current distribution of Bitcoin is a much better distribution of currency than any of the other proposals. Whether it's deserved or not is not relevant in the slightest.
hero member
Activity: 699
Merit: 501
Coinpanion.io - Copy Successful Crypto Traders
Shares are not currency.
Currency is the most marketable good. Shares can be currency if marketable enough.

And a share almost instantanely and freely exchangable anywhere in the world thanks to a P2P network is damn marketable. We can even assume a bitcoin is a share in a non-profitable corporation (ie. who pays no dividends).

I agree 100% with you on this but he will probably laugh at you because a sheep is not a dog after all.
legendary
Activity: 861
Merit: 1010
Shares are not currency.
Currency is the most marketable good. Shares can be currency if marketable enough.

And a share almost instantanely and freely exchangable anywhere in the world thanks to a P2P network is damn marketable. We can even assume a bitcoin is a share in a non-profitable corporation (ie. which pays no dividends).
hero member
Activity: 699
Merit: 501
Coinpanion.io - Copy Successful Crypto Traders
The idea of IPO or one-week premine just does not fly, because nobody would have the incentive to join the system where random blokes own all the money and others have to buy it from them. Bitcoin's mining schedule is pretty much perfect in this sense.

What incentive had someone to buy Apple shares at 30$ considering that random blokes owned all the company at the time?
If the system is well promoted and well developed, and it is safe and resilient and works perfectly without wasting resources people will buy it even if 3 days after launch its market cap is 100M$.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
I don't know what you are talking about. I propose to do an IPO for initial distribution and you tell me that i don't know the difference between shares and currency, are you drunk?

Quoted for lulz. I think I need to put this to my sig  Grin
hero member
Activity: 699
Merit: 501
Coinpanion.io - Copy Successful Crypto Traders
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).

Creating a bitcoin spin-off is unethical because you are giving away most of the value to the already rich bitcoin early adopters.
Creating entire money supply out of thin air and give to the early adopters is ok but i think the best solution would be to launch an Etherum style IPO to raise money for developing and promoting the project.

Shares are not currency. (Oh my. In the "ancient times" 100 years ago a banker would need to know the difference between a mortgage and a real bill, since the former was not currency but the latter was. Now people are in all seriousness propagating shares as currency  Tongue Embarrassed )


I don't know what you are talking about. I propose to do an IPO for initial distribution and you tell me that i don't know the difference between shares and currency, are you drunk?
hero member
Activity: 699
Merit: 501
Coinpanion.io - Copy Successful Crypto Traders
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).
-Airdrop it to current BTC holders

(Peter R's spinoff proposition, which is awesome imho).

This is a very bad idea why rewarding Bitcoin early adopters even more? And i'm sure most of them don't give a shit about this project and they will rush for dumping their Bitcoin PoS as soon as they can.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
Is there a thread where we could talk about the interesting concepts of distributing the currency (assuming that the network security is a non-issue)? For example:

Satoshi gets 100,000 units of the new currency. Everybody that applies for his share after him gets an ever-declining amount. No new currency creation, only way to amass it is to buy in open market.


The idea of IPO or one-week premine just does not fly, because nobody would have the incentive to join the system where random blokes own all the money and others have to buy it from them. Bitcoin's mining schedule is pretty much perfect in this sense.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).

Creating a bitcoin spin-off is unethical because you are giving away most of the value to the already rich bitcoin early adopters.
Creating entire money supply out of thin air and give to the early adopters is ok but i think the best solution would be to launch an Etherum style IPO to raise money for developing and promoting the project.

Shares are not currency. (Oh my. In the "ancient times" 100 years ago a banker would need to know the difference between a mortgage and a real bill, since the former was not currency but the latter was. Now people are in all seriousness propagating shares as currency  Tongue Embarrassed )
hero member
Activity: 699
Merit: 501
Coinpanion.io - Copy Successful Crypto Traders
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).

Creating a bitcoin spin-off is unethical because you are giving away most of the value to the already rich bitcoin early adopters and the majority of them will surely dump their stake in the early stages and they can kill the project.
Creating entire money supply out of thin air and give to the early adopters is ok but i think the best solution would be to launch an Etherum style IPO to raise money for developing and promoting the project.
I think that only those who believe in the project and those who develop it deserve to become early adopters. Why do you want to give a stake to someone who doesn't give a shit about PoS?

And before talking about the distribution i think it is better if we find a way to achieve consensus using PoS which is the real big issue.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).
-Airdrop it to current BTC holders

(Peter R's spinoff proposition, which is awesome imho).

Yes, I also think it is very nice. The debate whether to steal somebody's share in the process is also very interesting and reveals much of the designers. (Not taking sides though).

legendary
Activity: 861
Merit: 1010
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).
-Airdrop it to current BTC holders

(Peter R's spinoff proposition, which is awesome imho).
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
Yes. I see. So this brings us to the problem of how to create the monetary base then?

- Loan it into existence (current fiat banking system). Most evil and insidious way that indebts and consequently enslaves most everyone.
- Create it out of thin air and give to the early adopters/whoever (premine). Unfair, uneconomical and does not work in practice.
- Mine it, with each unit of currency created against an equal value of real resources wasted (Bitcoin).
legendary
Activity: 861
Merit: 1010
The main argument you've been proposing and I've been attacking is the blessing of new coins given to existing holders.

If there is something more to it, please bring it to the table.
Well I already said 4 or 5 times in this thread that with PoS new coins/currency units don't need to be create, therefore existing holders would no be blessed with new currency units.

You can either fixed completly the money supply (1) or destroying the money supply as transaction fees (2).

Both with (1) and (2) nobody wins more coins and the money supply never increase. In (1) holders' stake as a proportion to the total money supply is forever fixed, in (2) holders' stake as a proportion to the total money supply increase over time due to the destruction of the money supply, economically this is equivalent to a dividends/shares buyback.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
The main argument you've been proposing and I've been attacking is the blessing of new coins given to existing holders.

If there is something more to it, please bring it to the table.
Pages:
Jump to: