Topic: Bitcoin v2.0 - page 2. (Read 7540 times)

No. This is why I'm telling people like you with either a pontificating disorder coupled with limited understanding of economics or control issues to start their own block chain and see for themselves to true nature of the blight they have given birth to. No one is forcing you to use Bitcoins. Bitcoins will only take over the entire international economy if its properties appeal to every member of the economy. Obviously it won't, look at yourself.


Current Bitcoin isn't unfair, you're just reacting emotionally to it. But that's beyond the point. Now I see the full extent by which you are detached from reality. You are saying in a late future, when Bitcoin will be known to all, you shall start your superior coin and everyone will drop Bitcoin and join yours on day 1 because Bitcoin is flawed and your chimera fixes these flaws. How is that gonna work exactly? If Bitcoin is flawed, it will fail, and you won't have a community willing to join another version of it in throngs from day 1. The very idea that a concept should gain public approval on the sole premise that it is flawed and a fraud is disturbing. If anything, you should start your block chain this very moment. Every second you allow that fraudulent block chain to monopolize people's mind is a second more of work for you to redeem the name of Bitcoin so that v2.0 can take over. On the other hand, if v1.0 is a success, then obviously it isn't flawed, your changes are useless, and no one will join your 2.0. Actually, let's call it Bitcoin -2.0.


What are they losing? There are 3 types of currency models out there: inflationary, deflationary, stabilized (roflol pixie dust). Entry upon the market doesn't affect your outstanding wealth, so the only meaningful effect is the appreciation of your wealth over time. With an inflationary model, you stand at best to maintain your wealth, at worst to lose it all but a tiny fraction. With a stabilized model, you stand to drink the cool aid. With a deflationary model, you stand to maintain your wealth at worst, buy a space ship with spare change at best. So I'd like to see how you're losing anything.



I get it now, you're 12.



With that level of inflation you're looking to double your monetary mass every 70 years or so...


Yet you want to change the currency to have governments adopt it. Do you want governments in or out of it? It's getting hard to follow you.


You don't like taxes but you hate deflation and are in love with inflation? 'scuse me wha?


The mother principle of private property is first come first served. Are you against private property too?

Not even the most optimistic bitcoin enthusiasts are predicting that bitcoin will replace all world currencies!


No, you're talking about changing the whole monetary system. Everyone else considers bitcoin to be a fun experiment and currently a risky investment.

If bitcoin succeeds, it will be as an alternative payment method. You'll still be able to pay things in dollars/euros/pounds/yen/whatever, especially since governments usually expect to pay your taxes in the local currency.


That's probably a good indication it will succeed


Adopting bitcoin doesn't mean you'll be magically free of taxes.


You could just peg the value of whatever you're selling to a dollar value until the price stabilizes. You'd still pay in bitcoins, but the price would be determined by the exchange rate.

So what if bitcoins become expensive? it won't be at all like giving all your money to the early adopters, you give some early adopter 1000$ he gives you a bitcoin, you purchase goods or services worth 1000$ using that bitcoin or trade it back whenever you see fit... you don't lose anything by it and early adapters gain some wealth, a very few maybe a lot, so what, nothing compared to govt institutions...

This is ignorant and offensive.  First, many of the early adopters were instrumental in actually building the system.  And, now, due to the appreciation of bitcoin, I imagine some are afforded the opportunity to quit their day jobs and work entirely on the bitcoin infrastructure.  Second, someone putting money into bitcoins early on is not someone getting something for nothing.  They had to trade something to acquire those bitcoins.  And I imagine they had to work in some capacity to obtain whatever it was that they traded for bitcoins.  That is wealth that they chose to put into bitcoins that they could have otherwise used to by food or the latest iGadget.  They were taking a risk that they might lose every bit of wealth they invested.

Also, as for 10%, well, for that to be a significant amount, you would have to believe that bitcoins are going to replace most other currencies...I think that is simply unrealistic (at least not anytime soon).  There are already competing alternatives (including existing national currencies) and there will likely be more.

I would encourage you to start a competing currency...if people agree with your sense of fairness, they might invest...especially if you offer a very large potential appreciation to early investors. 

Not clear at all.  Depends what happens in the future.  If BTC goes up to $10 million, the move from $0 to $8 will be totally irrelevant.

Actually, part of the point of Bitcoin is that no one is forcing you to use it (unlike fiat currencies).

And why not? Because that wouldn't be *fair*? Well, look around you! The world isn't fair at all. I'm sure 20% of the worlds population owns 80% of all wealth. Is that fair? Heck, no! This time it is might be hackers that gets to hold that money, not stock brokers, or people that inherit all their money.

Bitcoin isn't fair, but at least it was open for anyone. You (and I) didn't get on this train early enough. Shit happens. Get over it.

@weavejester - Google stocks are google stocks, BTC is what you will HAVE to use when it comes to use as this is going to be global currency (i think that's the point?). That makes big difference. Noone want you to put money in the google stocks, however if btc become popular you will have to. And there will be always late adopters (someone has to be ?). I just consider option that BTC is global system where everyone is in it, not an $<->BTC speculative one or whatever you call it (investment one). Last adopters will always lose this way. Bitcoin v2.0 or however we should call it should just distribute money in better way as i said to be more fair to all. That's all. If you just make it as an investment then you can't call it money, and if you can call it money then it must be distributed properly to replace current money on the market, otherwise it's an pyramid where early adopters earn sitting and waiting for more people to come and put $s (their work) in system. We are talking about changing whole monetary system, not an risky investment to system that can fail probably.


@goatpig

1) the problem is that "my" bitcoin can't START and current bitcoin is unfair. That's why i say it would need to be in 2020 when everyone already heard about bitcoin and will be ready to exchange to "my" bitcoin in 2020 while still using $ in 2019 december, not an 1.0v of BTC. If v. 1.0 will get spread then it will be pyramided as i said so it won't be fixed any way possible.

2) (read what i wrote to @weavejester in this post)

3) about fees - current system is ok, but there was talk about how much of it should be implemented (percentiles of transaction or minimum fee) - i just say that it should be changed dynamically by the system to be always MINIMUM for example 1/10 of the price of matches or something like that. And that 1% of money growth per year - to keep money in same state of work/amount without deflation. It will be just easier for whole system and will put more miners into the network. We are talking about times 2050 or later when it's stable and working for all people around the world.

5) i don't like idea of any governments to be a part of it, i would love to see HOW much they really earn and be able to cut that off to the total minimum. I am mainly here because of that. I just love the idea to be free of the taxes, and pay really for what i have and would like to pay. The main thing i don't like is just the distribution and a lot of people will probably won't join thinking they are an 1mil person that will pay 100$ for one coin when other people sit on money being first.

last thing: Until money stabilize we can't use it everyday(too high price changes). Thats really hard and i hope a lot of people will join fast and 1 BTC will be always in the same work ratio.

Now you got me lost. You're saying if Bitcoin works, then you'll start Bitcoin 2.0? I thought the point of Bitcoin 2.0 was to fix Bitcoin "1.0". If 1.0 needs to be fixed, naturally it can't work right? So how is it gonna make it to 2020 without your superior guidance? I say you should start your block chain right now. And I changed my mind, let's call it HurrDurrCoin.


You seem to be under the illusion that Bitcoins are actually worth $10,000 each and that the whole process of public adoption is but a mere formality waiting to happen. If that's the case, first you should quickly buy all those BTC for $8 or so, that's literally getting it for pennies on the dollar, twice over. Second, why would Bitcoin need to be "fixed" again?


So you're saying you think the fee alone won't be able to sustain good enough security. Your solution is to systemically inflate the currency. What makes you think people will switch over a taxed block chain when they can simply let the market figure it out on the original chain?


You say you like the idea of a free currency. But then you say you want to modify that currency so that governments start liking it too. This takes away the "free" part.

Yes... so what? If I invested $1500 in Google stock in 1999, I'd have over $1 million by 2004. How is bitcoin any different?

I don't think you quite appreciate the fact that, at the moment, investing in bitcoins is a risk. There's no guarantee that the price of bitcoins will continue to rise, just as there was no guarantee that Google would become as successful as it is today.

Early adopters get large returns because they shoulder large risks. Anyone investing in Bitcoin should be fully prepared to lose whatever money they put in.

@weavejester but simple thing is that the first people that bought bitcoins will have earnings just for being first adopters of this currency... Its value grow because of deflation-way it's built. Maybe it's called different than "ponzi scheme" maybe i am wrong here, but you get my point. Maybe money they get isn't that big i said. If they will have let's say 1% of the network spreaded to 100 people - then it's ok, but simple guy having 2% of worlds money ? (400k coins or even more) It's 100 000 000 people working for him for around a month or even more if people don't use all money they have all the time. Isn't that still a lot?


@goatpig:

1) promotion here is good as i said. I said that  i wont start my network, but if it will need to happen then it will be yr. 2020 i.e. when everyone know WHAT bitcoin is and then set exact START date so noone will double transactions or so.

2) @up + sorry but investing pizza for 10k btc's isn't an investment. It's way under price. Dunno why people sold their btc's even if there was not really a lot of adopters? It was sure this idea will survive as it's new and DIFFERENT than any other ideas like Klamm lose or other stuff that's centralized. I always put money in such things but it was just spam of centralized shit so it was not worth of that

3) i dont understand completly what you said but if you mentioned not earning miners then - they will earn by fees spent in network, and also by 1% of money growth every year ( i am talking here for day in years 2100+ because currently system will work for that year or even earlier with decent payout for miners just for 'mining' blocks)

4) Yes i am mistaken here - it's just an idea, it could be methmatically changed for example to have lowest minimum that is around $0.001 valued in BTC's ofc - for lowest transactions with low priority.

5) sorry, even translating this in google don't help me to understand what you mean.

+1

Bitcoin is a STARTUP currency. Without speculation, it would probably be impossible to bootstrap the currency, because new economies take a long time to develop. Early adopters have to be rewarded. What other way would possibly work?

No I mean it, if you think your idea is worth it, go ahead and start your own block chain. The changes you are talking about are easy to implement, and the source is available to all. Then we shall all wait and see if you can get it running with premises such as:

1) The promotion of inflation under the govern of your gut feelings, since there is no tangible way to discern between coins held on for long periods of time and lost private keys. GG decentralization.

2) Early adopters should be slapped in the face and have their wealth seized for taking the risk to invest and bootstrap the currency.

3) Low to inexistent security, for miners shouldn't be rewarded so, since their work amounts to "nothing". It's also nice to run under a project lead who "really belive in the IDEA of free currency" but can't wrap his mind around its most prominent technological feature...

4) Transaction fees modeled solely on volume, so that people can actually spam the network by throwing satoshis at each other.

5) To pretend to support a free currency all the while looking to change it in order to have countries endorse it. Gotta know what you want son.

One nice bag of nonsense. Let's call it BackwardsCoin, shan't we?

You don't appear to know what a Ponzi scheme is, and you don't seem to have a good understanding of how Bitcoin works.

A Ponzi scheme involves lying about how much capital there is. You might invest $1 million, and then I might lie and tell you that I've managed to double your investment, when in reality I've done nothing. It's the act of deliberately misrepresenting the amount of capital available that makes it fraud.

Bitcoins cannot be a Ponzi scheme in themselves, because there's no one person who decides their worth. Bitcoins are, at worst, merely a risky investment.

Secondly, you seem to assume that everyone will buy up bitcoins and hoard them, but the value of bitcoins derives from their ability to transfer wealth without the need for an intermediate financial institution. If no-one's using bitcoins, then they have no worth beyond speculation, and you can't grow an economy from scratch to $10 billion on speculation alone.

If bitcoins ever get to $10,000 / 1 BTC, then it will be because people are regularly using them to transfer money. It's the infrastructure and social following that would give bitcoins their value; we won't ever get into a situation where billions of dollars are invested in a currency no-one uses.

Finally, you seem to be upset that early adopters stand to gain large amounts of money "for nothing" if bitcoin succeeds. You don't seem to appreciate that anyone investing in bitcoins at this point is taking a risk. If you invest $1000 in bitcoins, then there's a strong possibility you'll lose your investment if the currency fails. The principle of high-risk/high-reward is nothing unusual.

Like I said, information is very valuable. Unfortunately for us, we don't live in a world where everyone has all the information about all things at all times. This is a silly argument. If everyone is getting an influenza vaccine, and I die of influenza because I live in the woods and never heard about an influenza vaccine, does that mean that influenza vaccines are unfair? No, it doesn't.

You can choose to use the tool or not, crying that the people who found the tool first have an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Suggesting a voluntary currency is a Ponzi scheme is just as ridiculous.

@rezin777 consider you working for their just 1 btc - building house for it in 2050, then we will talk Good that you joined network after 2 years of existence, but think what will happen if 'internet' will tell you about bitcoins in 2049?

@goatpig - another senseless post i like current idea too, just post something more informative, constructive about 2 problems(why they are not problems here?) i posted or quit this topic  : - )
I had to write that:  otherwise i will start to think that this network is currently build only by speculators and nerds that like to be better than others by any way and also like to piss of other net surfers for fun.

This is a beautiful idea. Now go start your custom block chain. I won't join, just so you know.

I like how BitterTea answered the early adopter argument.


Would you have though it was such a good idea then? Perhaps. Would you have invested in it? Maybe. The thing is, information is valuable (extremely valuable), and people with the proper information early on will reap the rewards.

Am I jealous that they learned about Bitcoin before me? Yes, but I'm not complaining that a voluntary currency is a Ponzi scheme like some people. That's just silly.

Mining is just an good advertisement for the network 'MONEY for NOTHING' ? that's how 90% of the miners work.

Idea had to be spreaded somehow and it's working this way. Good. There was NO other option. But early adopters will be rich and any of the last adopters will need to work for them JUST like that?? Thats NOT good. This can be a killer for Bitcoins.


@Clipse - thats not response on any of the problems i have put in first post. Say why it isn't ponzi scheme and here will be no deflation.

@bitcool - every country as an ponzi scheme? Taxes are shit, but tell me who is paying for school of your kids or police? I KNOW they are way too high - i see bitcoin here only as a way to see the money flooding government accounts - and that's excellent. It's just the way to lower them or pay by self  - and that's also excellent , however it can be done also with currenty money unless you are living in country that's not democratic one.
Since you we're born - you had no choice which money you want to use in your country, but your work = money, isn't it ? How does it work in Bitcoin??

Every country, government can be viewed as a Ponzi scheme, you can join them, or become a outcast.

People on the Mayflowers (and all those came to the New World) were sure Ponzi scheme perpetrators