Topic: Deflatory nature of Bitcoin - the problem and a possible solution - page 2. (Read 6368 times)

Lets put Thaaanos' statements into perspective. Could we be dealing with a central bank stooge?

Nowadays there is a better solution than the mattress. It's called bitcoin. It's probably an even better solution than savings.

There you go.   I think that is it.  That makes sense to me.  My answer was in jest.

Saving propably means save(?) in a Bank, where that capital is recycled in the economy.
while hoarding means save under the mattress, or in a chest or in a hole in the ground, where that capital is retracted by the economy.

Saving is something we are all suposed to do.  If we don't do it then we get slapped.

If we actually find a way to save it is called hoarding.  If we hoard then we get slapped.

What is the difference between "hoarding" and "saving?"

I thought saving was important.

Land is a good analogy. But same you could say about corporate shares or fonds. When they are increasing in value all the time, nobody will sell, ever! Most people tend to hoard there shares and live like a homeless guy and then on death bed they spend it.
Because: Money on the bank is much worthier than a nice TV or a trip to Thailand.

And sure, who will buy a coffee, when you can buy with that bitcoin 5% more coffee in one year? 

First things first I need a mysterious persona, how do you find "Atanashi Anakatoma"?

It appears that you really like your idea so I suggest you run with it and create OURO ȣ

Let us all know when it is available with a white paper, reference client code, miner code (if needed), etc.

Actually it works as new coins debase/obsolete the old, and yes they will not have a face value, an output it will require some *weighting*
however due to the recycling effect the actual value stored in the coin will be it's utility as exchange means, not some artificial scarcity.
On the technical side -watch me take out the duality card-
The numbers in the transaction tree will not represent number of coins but, *weights*. The leaves are where the value will lie (block age) and the trasactions simply create a weighted tree. So output "value" from scalar is vectorized, and yes now coins are semi-fungable, but thats a plus actually as I hope that this semi-fungability will lead to people trading them. That inter-trade is what I bet on to use as a stabilizer.

EDIT: BTW since this is my coin I will call it OURO ȣ

Exactly, you just made my point for me.  Thanks.  You just took almost 49 BTC from the car dealer, HALF what he was paid for the car.

Because of this the VanishCoin idea is not money and is a still born alt coin concept.

Whatever plans Satoshi hatched were his own. There was no stake to hold. People accepted bitcoin in the state it was in.

He probably didn't think it through this far, but this is actually quite easy. Distribute it amoung the outputs.
    95 - 49*95/99 BTC to the dealer for the car
    4 - 49*4/99 BTC to a change address

If your, or any, alt coin idea creates a situation where the market assigns different values to different coins as in your case of assigning different values to coins with different "ages" then we are done here.  If that is the case then your coins are not money, they are collectibles.  Money is fungible.  Collectibles require a third party to "grade" them in order to assign value.  I suggest you learn a lot more about Bitcoins, what they are, how they actually work, what makes the system unique and why so many people are inspired by it BEFORE you try to fix it.

Just in case anyone has any remaining doubts about your complete and total lack of understanding of what bitcoin is and how it works, can you please post some more?

With a moving genesis block, you have total chaos.  New nodes would not sync to the rest of the network because they would quickly find transactions that refer to past transactions that no longer exist.  They would see everything as invalid: transactions, blocks, everything.

You can't, in general, undo the start of a linked list without throwing the whole thing out.

Now if you kept the old chain, but decided that transactions that referenced it were merely invalid in the future, you end up with the situation that BurtW is trying to ask you about.  That you can't see it is, uh, informative.

Keep in mind that we do not trace transactions backwards.  When a new transaction comes in (by message or by block), we validate it against our current set, and if we accept it, we update that set to reflect the new information.  We could trace backwards, if there was some need, at a considerable cost.  I look forward to hearing how you solve that problem in your VanishCoin alt.

very similar indeed. Anyway i do notimmediatly get why such a demurrage shold prevent from interest borrowing. In my opinion interest borrowing should remain. Thanx i think i'll buy some.

That's not Central planning, what shatoshi did was central planning

Shit even Borgs dont work this way.
So you find no moral hazard in decoupling a decision from the stakeholders and a few decades?

What if everyone agrees? what if Satoshi steps out of nowhere and tells hey guys I think thaaanos is onto something lets do as he says

Ok What would the effect be is suddendly everyone decided that the genesis block is one past the one of Jan 2009 you mined

You basically described Freicoin and how it is implement, though it has transaction fees to avoid spamming as with BTC, but because of continual 'remining' as you call it the network never relies on transaction fees as a revenue source for miners, it is always intended to remain trivial.  Ideally their would be no transaction fee if a technical solution could be found to transaction spamming.

Check out our forums or IRC channel to learn more (links in my sig)

There are strict tecnical protocol reasons why the changes you are proposing cannot be done "to Bitcoin" because by design if you make these types of changes you automatically create what is called a hard fork in the blockchain.  This hard fork creates two different block chains with two different coins:  the original Bitcoins and the new alt coins.  No matter how loud or how often you try to call the new alt coins "Bitcoins" it is not true and everyone who continues to support the original chain will know it is a lie.

All of the miners and clients that continue to support the Bitcoin way of doing things will not accept the alt coins you have just created.  All of the miners and clients that support your changes and accept the alt coin will accept the old Bitcoins untill they are all spent on your new alt chain.

Now on to your question:

Let's say I have a vigin block of 50 BTC that was mined in January of 2009.
At some point in January 2010 I sent 1 BTC to a buddy, sending the change to a new address
Now Yesterday I wanted to spend 95 BTC to buy a new Tesla S from a car dealer

The transaction is as follow:

    49 BTC from the change from the 2010 transaction
    25 BTC from a brand new freshly minted block
    25 BTC from a block that was minted in 2013

Outputs:

    95 BTC to the dealer for the car
    4 BTC to a change address

Now you want to kill the BTC from from the Jany 2009 block.  How would you do it?

Yes you bad. Take a look around the world and take a hint.