Deflatory nature of Bitcoin - the problem and a possible solution - page 3.

thaaanos

sr. member

Activity: 370

Merit: 250

Quote from: BurtW on January 08, 2014, 12:30:54 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:39:21 AM

No in my idea bitcoins aquire a dimension of Age. Every time the Earliest mined bitcoins (the block that gets invalidated) are no longer a valid output so all transactions rooted to them get also invalidated when that block phases out.

Quote from: BurtW on January 08, 2014, 02:55:30 AM

Quick question on the "rolling window" ideas: what prevents me from simply periodically moving my hoarded coins to a new set of addresses?

as I said above the "moving" transaction will be invalid because it's inputs will be invalidated if they are rooted to a block that got off the rolling window.

That window is neccecary be small it can be say 49 years, so hopefully the bitcoins that will be invalidated are sufficiently diffused so no single person will feel the hit, Unless he is hoarding of course. Essentially this gives greater value to freshed mined coins (they will last longer) and gives equall opportunities even to late adopters.

Thanks! You just reminded me why I hate the economics forum and every stupid thread about "fixing" Bitcoin. You do not have the slightest clue as to how the Bitcoin protocol works or how Bitcoin transactions work or how your idea will never work.

One more thing before I go back to the technical discussions where I belong: all this talk about "changing Bitcoin" is a total joke. Any substantial change to Bitcoin is a new coin by design. You cannot change Bitcoin in any substantial way. You are discussing alt coins: InflatoCoin, TaxCoin, TheftCoin, MagicVanishCoin, or whatever. You are not discussing Bitcoin. The only changes that will ever be made to Bitcoin are small technical improvement that can be done within the established protocol.

EDIT: Darn, I screwed up my edit and lost some text. Something like "Good bye and good luck, etc."

IMO Anything can be changed
But before you go just please tell me if my proposal is technically feasible within bitcoins codebase, if not why? and I promise not to plague you in the techical forums Tongue

thaaanos

sr. member

Activity: 370

Merit: 250

Quote from: kaito on January 08, 2014, 11:45:23 AM

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:46:06 AM

as I said above the "moving" transaction will be invalid because it's inputs will be invalidated if they are rooted to a block that got off the rolling window.

I'm sorry but the idea is just bad, it's a non-starter. Aside from the disgusting central planning, a) this can still hit just one person who sold a house, b) people can still "launder" their coins by sending them to mixing services and exchanges, having other people share or take up the whole loss. Or people would value newer coins higher and make them non-fungible.

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:46:06 AM

Choice? Really? just as you have a choice of not using Google or Microsoft or Facebook? Sure I still have a choice to live in a hut in the woods hunting vermins.

Yes, really. Choices have consequences and most of the time you don't get to change them.

Seriously, with your mindset, I wonder what you'd even want with bitcoin. You seem like you should be perfectly happy with fiat. You have your trusted individuals and collective judgement that do the right thing™ for the economy! And you even have lots of inflation coming, isn't that what you want?

Where in my proposal you see Central Planning? Are you having halucinations?
a) So maybe he would choose freshly minted coins on his contract? or a basket of mixed age coins?
b) People are going to *trade* older coins for newer coins at market rates in the exchanges
c) Idealy the loss would be shared accross all wallets, given sufficient diffusion over a timeframe of say 42 Wink

years.

So yeah ok I still have faith in human judgement, I don't want my life to be dictated by an algorithm. Me Bad. I don't see any inflation coming my way, I could use a couple of points.

Kungfucheez

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Think you meant "Deflationary" OP

diedicar

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

no transaction fees (every other means of payment iscrewed in no time) finite quantity of coins, every wallet looses some coins, in percentage to the holdings, that go to miners: they actually "remine" the coins. Just an embryonal idea. The miners "steal" from steady accounts, but they do not "steal" for transaction fees. A very liquidity premium.

sdp

sr. member

Activity: 469

Merit: 281

Quote from: benzone on January 04, 2014, 07:45:28 AM

he answer I propose are variable transaction fees. The variable percentage of these fees would be proportional to the duration an individual has held on to the Bitcoins in his or her wallet.

We have variable transaction fees but this is the exact opposite to the relationship established for them. So you don't keep sending tiny amounts to yourself in order to make Bitcoin unusable, there is a minimal time you need to hold on to the coins before you can spend them without a fee for amounts under a certain minimum amount.

See the wiki article on bitcoin transaction fees. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

If you do implement the idea in an altcoin I can save by sending the coin to myself. Your idea is impossible unless you link real identity to private keys, and if you need to do that you no longer can have a decentralized computer application.

sdp

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 12:36:25 PM

mark your post. bitcoin is just like myspace, in no way you can pretend technology stops from improving. litecoin is ALREADY ramping with very good volumes. Or you think it will fail? why should it fail?

I never said that all alts will fail, some may do ok, most are still born - especially all the ideas in this thread. I said I am betting on Bitcoin and you can bet on whatever alt you choose.

diedicar

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

Quote from: BurtW on January 08, 2014, 12:30:54 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:39:21 AM

No in my idea bitcoins aquire a dimension of Age. Every time the Earliest mined bitcoins (the block that gets invalidated) are no longer a valid output so all transactions rooted to them get also invalidated when that block phases out.

Quote from: BurtW on January 08, 2014, 02:55:30 AM

Quick question on the "rolling window" ideas: what prevents me from simply periodically moving my hoarded coins to a new set of addresses?

as I said above the "moving" transaction will be invalid because it's inputs will be invalidated if they are rooted to a block that got off the rolling window.

That window is neccecary be small it can be say 49 years, so hopefully the bitcoins that will be invalidated are sufficiently diffused so no single person will feel the hit, Unless he is hoarding of course. Essentially this gives greater value to freshed mined coins (they will last longer) and gives equall opportunities even to late adopters.

Time will tell who is right.

mark your post. bitcoin is just like myspace, in no way you can pretend technology stops from improving. litecoin is ALREADY ramping with very good volumes. Or you think it will fail? why should it fail?

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:39:21 AM

No in my idea bitcoins aquire a dimension of Age. Every time the Earliest mined bitcoins (the block that gets invalidated) are no longer a valid output so all transactions rooted to them get also invalidated when that block phases out.

Quote from: BurtW on January 08, 2014, 02:55:30 AM

Quick question on the "rolling window" ideas: what prevents me from simply periodically moving my hoarded coins to a new set of addresses?

as I said above the "moving" transaction will be invalid because it's inputs will be invalidated if they are rooted to a block that got off the rolling window.

That window is neccecary be small it can be say 49 years, so hopefully the bitcoins that will be invalidated are sufficiently diffused so no single person will feel the hit, Unless he is hoarding of course. Essentially this gives greater value to freshed mined coins (they will last longer) and gives equall opportunities even to late adopters.

Thanks! You just reminded me why I hate the economics forum and every stupid thread about "fixing" Bitcoin. You do not have the slightest clue as to how the Bitcoin protocol works or how Bitcoin transactions work or how your idea will never work.

One more thing before I go back to the technical discussions where I belong: all this talk about "changing Bitcoin" is a total joke. Any substantial change to Bitcoin is a new coin by design. You cannot change Bitcoin in any substantial way. You are discussing alt coins: InflatoCoin, TaxCoin, TheftCoin, MagicVanishCoin, or whatever. You are not discussing Bitcoin. The only changes that will ever be made to Bitcoin are small technical improvement that can be done within the established protocol.

EDIT: Darn, I screwed up my edit and lost some text. Something like "Good bye and good luck, etc."

kaito

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:46:06 AM

as I said above the "moving" transaction will be invalid because it's inputs will be invalidated if they are rooted to a block that got off the rolling window.

I'm sorry but the idea is just bad, it's a non-starter. Aside from the disgusting central planning, a) this can still hit just one person who sold a house, b) people can still "launder" their coins by sending them to mixing services and exchanges, having other people share or take up the whole loss. Or people would value newer coins higher and make them non-fungible.

Quote from: thaaanos on January 08, 2014, 10:46:06 AM

Choice? Really? just as you have a choice of not using Google or Microsoft or Facebook? Sure I still have a choice to live in a hut in the woods hunting vermins.

Yes, really. Choices have consequences and most of the time you don't get to change them.

Seriously, with your mindset, I wonder what you'd even want with bitcoin. You seem like you should be perfectly happy with fiat. You have your trusted individuals and collective judgement that do the right thing™ for the economy! And you even have lots of inflation coming, isn't that what you want?

thaaanos

sr. member

Activity: 370

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lloydie on January 07, 2014, 08:45:17 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on January 07, 2014, 05:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lloydie on January 07, 2014, 05:01:33 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on January 07, 2014, 03:03:35 PM

Quote from: diedicar on January 07, 2014, 02:15:23 PM

but no one noticed that litecoin provides millions extracoins to the economy? how can you really belive that cryptocurrencies as a whole colud turn out to be actually deflationary? you'd better start thinking about it: what if litecoin succeds?

Most cryptocurrencies that I know reward early miners disproportionaly, that is one problem independent of deflation or, and promote aristocracy which can cause serious political problems, which is why I propose a "Rolling" Blockchain

Deflation, or Inflation can be induced this way now by stretching or shrinking the Valid Blockchain Window. Maybe Invalidation threshold can be decided by a de'facto concessus between the Independent Private Invalidation Threshold that miners choose.

No. This is not correct. Btc rewards early miners who spend their btcs when btcs reach a level that makes them feel wealthy. Over time, Btc distribution will become fairer. Anyway, Btc market is only $10 B for goodness sakes!

Credit money increases the gap between rich and poor because fiat is being devalued via asset price inflation. This is the real problem causing inequality and the loss of social cohesion.

As mentioned before, take the rolling blockchain idea and build your own coin and see how many people use your inflationary coin. Not many will I suspect.

Don't try to fix what ain't broke.

Please don't mix the issues here:
The rolling blockchain achieves 2 things
1: Justice (and don't naysay me period)
2: Discourages hoarding, will increase utility hence survivability
3: Act as recycling mechanism or a rolling reboot of the economy

A further improvement by decoupling invalidation and creation rates can provide
1: Control over inflating/deflating the economy the beauty here is that every miner can at this point play the role of a central banker by a tiny bit

Oh puhleassse, spare us. Go build your own effing coin and prove to us it's better.

What justice? According to you? Every single person who owns bitcoins CHOSE to use bitcoins. It's the ultimate democratic currency.

As a Greek, you should have some idea about that instead of trying to ram your ideas down our throats.

Well if you find *Just* the fact that one can live off without working by spending diminishing fractions of this stash, then maybe we could all do it then and see what happens... Can I choose that?

Choice? Really? just as you have a choice of not using Google or Microsoft or Facebook? Sure I still have a choice to live in a hut in the woods hunting vermins.

thaaanos

sr. member

Activity: 370

Merit: 250

Quote from: kaito on January 08, 2014, 12:06:03 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 07, 2014, 11:22:27 PM

i was thinking a very similar model. il' think again. At a first glance yours seems very reasonable and self sustaining.

Well then look again.
His pros and cons are pulled out of his rear and he wants to "trust individual and collective human judgement" to decide the who gets to lose his coins.

No in my idea bitcoins aquire a dimension of Age. Every time the Earliest mined bitcoins (the block that gets invalidated) are no longer a valid output so all transactions rooted to them get also invalidated when that block phases out.
The decision of inflating or deflating the economy is decoupled from the distribution or invalidation of the bitcoins

Quote from: BurtW on January 08, 2014, 02:55:30 AM

Quick question on the "rolling window" ideas: what prevents me from simply periodically moving my hoarded coins to a new set of addresses?

as I said above the "moving" transaction will be invalid because it's inputs will be invalidated if they are rooted to a block that got off the rolling window.

That window is neccecary be small it can be say 49 years, so hopefully the bitcoins that will be invalidated are sufficiently diffused so no single person will feel the hit, Unless he is hoarding of course. Essentially this gives greater value to freshed mined coins (they will last longer) and gives equall opportunities even to late adopters.

For those who like to keep bitcoin deflationary (for the right reasons - other than milking the Cash Cow) note that this way if the rate of invalidations=rate of mining the number of bitcoins can stay constant.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quick question on the "rolling window" ideas: what prevents me from simply periodically moving my hoarded coins to a new set of addresses?

Lloydie

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 02:22:56 AM

Quote from: Lloydie on January 08, 2014, 02:09:19 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:41:55 AM

Quote from: kaito on January 08, 2014, 01:25:36 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:02:47 AM

ok who pays after the last satoshi is mined for the blockchain manteinance? transaction fees. But why should this be big enough? why do not let the transactions free and remine the coins?

Big enough for what?
Free transactions means blockchain spam.
What does remine mean?

the cost of transactions is equally divided in all existing bitcoins, as a deposit and manteinace cost. I do not think there will be spam, but if you please we can keep a very low transaction fee.

If you're still alive in 2140, you can worry about this problem. By that stage I think 1 Btc should be worth more than $1 Million in today's dollars.

Therefore, transaction fees will be plenty enough for low energy ASIC systems.

if there will be an alt coin with 0 transaction fees, there will be no bitcoin in 2140.

In that case GTFO and go build your 0 transaction fee alt coin. What are you waiting for?

diedicar

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lloydie on January 08, 2014, 02:09:19 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:41:55 AM

Quote from: kaito on January 08, 2014, 01:25:36 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:02:47 AM

ok who pays after the last satoshi is mined for the blockchain manteinance? transaction fees. But why should this be big enough? why do not let the transactions free and remine the coins?

Big enough for what?
Free transactions means blockchain spam.
What does remine mean?

the cost of transactions is equally divided in all existing bitcoins, as a deposit and manteinace cost. I do not think there will be spam, but if you please we can keep a very low transaction fee.

If you're still alive in 2140, you can worry about this problem. By that stage I think 1 Btc should be worth more than $1 Million in today's dollars.

Therefore, transaction fees will be plenty enough for low energy ASIC systems.

if there will be an alt coin with 0 transaction fees, there will be no bitcoin in 2140.

Lloydie

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:41:55 AM

Quote from: kaito on January 08, 2014, 01:25:36 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:02:47 AM

ok who pays after the last satoshi is mined for the blockchain manteinance? transaction fees. But why should this be big enough? why do not let the transactions free and remine the coins?

Big enough for what?
Free transactions means blockchain spam.
What does remine mean?

the cost of transactions is equally divided in all existing bitcoins, as a deposit and manteinace cost. I do not think there will be spam, but if you please we can keep a very low transaction fee.

If you're still alive in 2140, you can worry about this problem. By that stage I think 1 Btc should be worth more than $1 Million in today's dollars.

Therefore, transaction fees will be plenty enough for low energy ASIC systems.

diedicar

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

Quote from: kaito on January 08, 2014, 01:25:36 AM

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:02:47 AM

ok who pays after the last satoshi is mined for the blockchain manteinance? transaction fees. But why should this be big enough? why do not let the transactions free and remine the coins?

Big enough for what?
Free transactions means blockchain spam.
What does remine mean?

the cost of transactions is equally divided in all existing bitcoins, as a deposit and manteinace cost. I do not think there will be spam, but if you please we can keep a very low transaction fee.

kaito

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: diedicar on January 08, 2014, 01:02:47 AM

ok who pays after the last satoshi is mined for the blockchain manteinance? transaction fees. But why should this be big enough? why do not let the transactions free and remine the coins?

Big enough for what?
Free transactions means blockchain spam.
What does remine mean?

diedicar

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

ok who pays after the last satoshi is mined for the blockchain manteinance? transaction fees. But why should this be big enough? why do not let the transactions free and remine the coins?

kaito

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: diedicar on January 07, 2014, 11:22:27 PM

i was thinking a very similar model. il' think again. At a first glance yours seems very reasonable and self sustaining.

Well then look again.
His pros and cons are pulled out of his rear and he wants to "trust individual and collective human judgement" to decide the who gets to lose his coins.

diedicar

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

Quote from: thaaanos on January 07, 2014, 05:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lloydie on January 07, 2014, 05:01:33 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on January 07, 2014, 03:03:35 PM

Quote from: diedicar on January 07, 2014, 02:15:23 PM

but no one noticed that litecoin provides millions extracoins to the economy? how can you really belive that cryptocurrencies as a whole colud turn out to be actually deflationary? you'd better start thinking about it: what if litecoin succeds?

Most cryptocurrencies that I know reward early miners disproportionaly, that is one problem independent of deflation or, and promote aristocracy which can cause serious political problems, which is why I propose a "Rolling" Blockchain

Deflation, or Inflation can be induced this way now by stretching or shrinking the Valid Blockchain Window. Maybe Invalidation threshold can be decided by a de'facto concessus between the Independent Private Invalidation Threshold that miners choose.

No. This is not correct. Btc rewards early miners who spend their btcs when btcs reach a level that makes them feel wealthy. Over time, Btc distribution will become fairer. Anyway, Btc market is only $10 B for goodness sakes!

Credit money increases the gap between rich and poor because fiat is being devalued via asset price inflation. This is the real problem causing inequality and the loss of social cohesion.

As mentioned before, take the rolling blockchain idea and build your own coin and see how many people use your inflationary coin. Not many will I suspect.

Don't try to fix what ain't broke.

Please don't mix the issues here:
The rolling blockchain achieves 2 things
1: Justice (and don't naysay me period)
2: Discourages hoarding, will increase utility hence survivability
3: Act as recycling mechanism or a rolling reboot of the economy

A further improvement by decoupling invalidation and creation rates can provide
1: Control over inflating/deflating the economy the beauty here is that every miner can at this point play the role of a central banker by a tiny bit

i was thinking a very similar model. il' think again. At a first glance yours seems very reasonable and self sustaining.

Topic: Deflatory nature of Bitcoin - the problem and a possible solution - page 3. (Read 6351 times)