If you need something new since you dont approve of bitcoin as it is, that is your choice and start a new chain.
It will all depend on how well it gets established in order to "compete" with bitcoin.
Topic: Bitcoin v2.0 - page 3. (Read 7540 times)
... but then should be started again distributing coins without mining - just as many $ you have - that many BTC's u will get.
That's exactly what exchanges will do, and already do.
Early adopters do not necessarily get rich - they only get rich if they saw the exchange rate increase and didn't sell, from the very start to that hypothetical future moment resist the temptation to cash out and risk losing something or everything.
Also, in general I agree a somewhat better introduction rate function could have been chosen, but I'm far from convinced what a better rate would be.
Why 2.0?
It's simple:
1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.
It's simple:
1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.
One of Bitcoin's great virtue is its sociological consideration. How are you going to build an economy when nobody see a benefit in promoting this currency?
If you have inflatecoin and somebody started bitcoin, guess who's going to win?
Companies = work... apple microsoft did somethineg, early adopters didn't. They just use other people money basing on the idea.
edit: investing into company is something WAY different than investing in new currency. Dont mess two different things.
I know a lot of early adopters will even kill if there is need just to get more people in the system and get price higher. Not that kind of things world have already seen.
Let them be rich, but not 10% of the system money and NOT for nothing. And countries wont accept BTC unless it's fairly distributed at start. GL if you think it will be other way - for example Greece accepting it just like that. They will also get it as ponzi scheme.
And i don't mind getting my own network (no way to get more popular than actual system - it's first, it's like an gold). I am not too good programmer to get it work, i like current idea and i think that it should get into for example 1 billion people, but then should be started again distributing coins without mining - just as many $ you have - that many BTC's u will get.
edit: investing into company is something WAY different than investing in new currency. Dont mess two different things.
I know a lot of early adopters will even kill if there is need just to get more people in the system and get price higher. Not that kind of things world have already seen.
Let them be rich, but not 10% of the system money and NOT for nothing. And countries wont accept BTC unless it's fairly distributed at start. GL if you think it will be other way - for example Greece accepting it just like that. They will also get it as ponzi scheme.
And i don't mind getting my own network (no way to get more popular than actual system - it's first, it's like an gold). I am not too good programmer to get it work, i like current idea and i think that it should get into for example 1 billion people, but then should be started again distributing coins without mining - just as many $ you have - that many BTC's u will get.
simple answer, start your own blockchain. distribute initial coins however you want. when it becomes more widely accepted and has more network power than Bitcoin then I will be the first to congratulate you on being rich. Then we'll all make Bitcoin 3.
No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.
No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.
No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.
No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.
What do you think about people who invest in successful companies?
Resource allocation matters.
Resource allocation matters.
simple answer, start your own blockchain. distribute initial coins however you want. when it becomes more widely accepted and has more network power than Bitcoin then I will be the first to congratulate you.
No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.
No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.
No doubt there will be competing blockchains with different characteristics - and there should be.
No reason to change the original Bitcoin, let it continue obviously. Those who do not want to support it like yourself do not have to participate.
I am too beginning to think it's a ponzi scheme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcdE9ngx08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcdE9ngx08
Why 2.0?
It's simple:
1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.
2. Deflation. After introducing solution to first problem - we will have everyone with right money exchanged to BTC's. That's good, but consider that about 1% of people can lose their accounts due to an system crashes or smth. WE NEED to have for example additional 1% of the coins to be introduced to the system every year. This will stop people keeping money in the pockets like it is happening with the gold and will just keep accurate amount of bitcoins in move.
Fees would need to be - let's say 0.1% of the transaction. This way we will keep miners running and also we will have our network secured stoping spammers from sending mBTC or less transfers to crash network.
Sorry for my poor ugly english, it's not my native language.
BTW. i own some BTC's as i really belive in the IDEA of free currency, however this implementation have BIG disadvantages and it must be changed or exchanged to something else, otherwise we will se just small amount of users (mainly early adopters) in the network.
It's simple:
1. Ponzi scheme in current idea. Let's look 10 years afterwards. Everyone know bitcoin, everyone is exchanging his own money in country to BTC. What happens? BTC have value i.e. $10,000ea so last adopters will buy it for insane price, where early adopters will be able to build even their own country out of their BTC's? Sick. They did nothing to the society to have that workforce for nothing. Sorry - it's just ponzi scheme. I know they SHOULD have something for that, but 10% of the world's money is TOO much.
Solution (almost impossible):
Like in every country new money is introduced - everyone will need to exchange it in like a month or less. So this way if all people around the world (for example) have 21 bill $ then a guy with $1000 will get 1 BTC. Really good solution. BUT at first we need our current edition to spread around the world, the get people work with the idea etc. otherwise - it's completly impossible to get countries to work with this money just like that.
2. Deflation. After introducing solution to first problem - we will have everyone with right money exchanged to BTC's. That's good, but consider that about 1% of people can lose their accounts due to an system crashes or smth. WE NEED to have for example additional 1% of the coins to be introduced to the system every year. This will stop people keeping money in the pockets like it is happening with the gold and will just keep accurate amount of bitcoins in move.
Fees would need to be - let's say 0.1% of the transaction. This way we will keep miners running and also we will have our network secured stoping spammers from sending mBTC or less transfers to crash network.
Sorry for my poor ugly english, it's not my native language.
BTW. i own some BTC's as i really belive in the IDEA of free currency, however this implementation have BIG disadvantages and it must be changed or exchanged to something else, otherwise we will se just small amount of users (mainly early adopters) in the network.
Jump to: