Topic: Early speculator's reward antidote - page 7. (Read 22161 times)

All this amounts to is increasing the block reward with hashing power. And you get to determine when the block reward stops inflating.

Low difficulty coins are worth less (50 BTC mined at the start are 1 BTP now)
High difficulty coins are worth more (50 BTC mined now are 50 BTP)

Low difficulty reward 1 BTP
High difficulty reward 50 BTP

Low difficulty = Less hashing power
High difficulty = More hashing power

So you are attempting to retroactively change the rules that bootstrapped the current BTC economy.

It's a bit sneakier than starting a new block chain and and increasing the block reward with the difficulty (which is massive inflation).

It will be interesting to see how it works out. I wonder how many miners you will get when they realize you can simply introduce Bitcoin Plus Plus in two years and turn their efforts to dust.  After all, it will be unfair to the people joining in two years that we are able to mine so easily now.

I wonder if any BTC will get destroyed in the process. Such a risk to take when it will increase the value of all other BTC in existence.

Here I'll give you guys a hand. This guy will work on your project with you. http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9487.0

Clever proposal!  I love the idea of improving the client as a vehicle to promote BCP.  Of course, barring some kind of non-free license, the current maintainers could just cherry pick and merge their favorite features into the original client.  Would you propose to try to prevent that?

How would you reconcile

with

given BTC's rising difficulty?  Lower the conversion rate for future mined BTC, perhaps to zero?  Looks like some devil-in-the-details, but I look forward to your thoughts.

p.s., Your mockup is beautiful, and you should feel proud.  Eye of the beholder thing.   

people keep saying this as if it's a criticism of the notion of alternative block chains. the right response is 'yes, exactly, and that's fine. it shows a lack of barrier to entry into new block chains and is thus a reason that people should not speculate on the value of coins in any particular block chain'.

after a while, most companies face competitors. so will bitcoin. so did gold and dollars, from bitcoin itself. that's reason alone to stop propagating the idea that people will have 'retirement funds' based on coins in the current block chain.

Your mockups look bad and you should feel bad.

You have not profited until you sell your coins. At that point, you are providing coins to individuals who wish to purchase them at that price.

Is this really a difficult concept?

Yea, and in 2 years all present users will be "early adopters" and noobs will make another Bitcoin plus plus? LoL 
And what about early adopters IRL? Do you plan to redistribute all lands around the world, because people in the past discovered them and got them for free? 

It needs about 127,809 blocks worth of entrenchment.

Ah, crap.  Too late, but so close.

I have no sour grapes about anything. I am just wondering how far bitcoin needs to be entrenched in world adoption before similar competing systems start changing the game. As for early adopters with a horde of bitcoins now and then sharp (scary) slumps in value will filter down from the top. What i'm talking about is bitcoin needs to be overwhelmingly adopted as a medium of exchange, not only as a store of value if it is to work. Otherwise some CEO with a distaste for open source could easily adopt the concept.

Sounds like sour grapes. Should we confiscate the money people who invested early in Apple have made in the time since then? People that were mining back when bitcoin started could have ended up with a bunch of worthless coins or a bunch of highly valuable coins depending on if bitcoin took off. Their early support of the project has been rewarded but even if someone has 100,000 coins there is no way they could sell them all without the price plummeting. Plus this whole thing could collapse in 5 years. Who knows? I can't see the future and neither can you. Bitcoins are a high risk right now so the reward should be equally as high. Also why would you want to sell them all when you can just buy stuff using bitcoins directly? Coins from mining are a reward for supporting the network. The point of the network is an easy way of sending value to someone else without a central point of failure or control. Stop thinking oh I could have made $1,000,000 already. You have a certain amount of bitcoins which means you have a certain amount of value. If you want more bitcoins buy some or do something worth people paying you in bitcoins and quit trying to figure out how to start the game over again. You were late. Deal with it.

So if Google (who once toyed with the idea of building their own internet) wanted to set up gcoin or PayPal for obvious reasons wanted to give birth to paycoin, (gee trademarking these wouldn't be a bad idea.) they could possibly outstrip bitcoin adoption rates. I once heard an ICANN rep say nobody would bother competing with them because of its adoption by world commerce. Bitcoin needs a fast adoption rate (like really fast) to survive as the standard. Even then corporations can start generating their own currency for gift vouchers, reward point etc.

no, it would be more like setting up a blog that competes with an existing blog that has a readership of about 10,000.

it's a little harder than that because some bitcoin services, like exchanges, are hard to set up. thus, in practical terms, you'd eventually need buy-in from mt gox or the ability to start a new exchange. that said, the lack of transparency for, and competition with, mt gox is a significant problem for the current block chain anyway.

if a company like dwolla wanted to set up an alternative block chain, they could do it very easily and have a good chance of gaining more adoption than the current block chain has done. the current block chain needn't stand up particularly well to anyone with even a modest marketing budget. (i just hope that person or company wants to use the bitcoin technology rather than something else.)

How hard would it be to market a new blockchain? Would it be as hard as competing with ICAAN and starting up a new separate internet using a different protocol?

I'm continually amused by the bitterness concern shown by people new to bitcoin that it is somehow unfair that others found out before them, and gosh darn it have more bitcoins than they do!

Surely this should be remedied as in similar situations. Clearly all the shares of facebook are ready to be distributed by some sort of lottery to anyone interested? Perhaps real estate will have a similar redistribution, this will be my chance to own disneyland! How dare someone else have such a claim.

I guess we should be happy that they're content to whine post those concerns here on forum looking for a solution rather than actually putting all that effort into the real solution: create your own blockchain with whatever random distribution rules you want. Clearly it will be popular and become larger than the original bitcoin, as so much thought has been put into it. If you are not happy with Bitcoin, create your own LotteryCoin ! But I guess that is harder than begging on the forums to change the original Bitcoin to suit their wants, which will not happen. 

If you're simply sending BTC to someone willing to accept all BTC as being alike, then sure.

Even if you have received coins multiple times at the same address, you essentially have different transactions in your wallet.  The only thing in common is their controlling address.  If you can choose which coins you're spending or converting versus depending on the system to do it for you, the coins aren't being "combined".  Combining coins is something that only happens when party A sends X to party B, and X is greater than the largest coin transaction in A's wallet and so the transaction must have more than one input.

I confirm with many previous posters: its a no-problem.

There is no inherent value of BTC or any "realistic" exchange rate to some other currency, its all about the market. And to my impression it is a tight market. I wonder what happens if someone wants to change his BTCs against a Ferrari. If someone places 20000 BTC in the market, the price will drop immediately. How far? Probably the dream of a Ferrari is a kind of bubble.

Just my 0.05 BTC

This is interesting. What happens if I have 50 fresh high difficulty coins and Satoshi sends me some of his early ones to that address. Will I still get full credit if I send you 50?

I still don’t understand why this is a problem. The market prices this possibility in imo, and I would love if Satoshi or some other ancient miner decided to dump a few hundred k. It would just mean incredibly cheap coins for us, and I would gladly jump at the opportunity. They can’t unload forever/infinite amounts.

I don't care if people speculate, that's not what I'm concerned about.  I am concerned that millions of BTC at difficulty 1 are out there and stand to have the same effect on the Bitcoin economy as Bernanke's printing press.

Say a new client were released around difficulty 1 million, and that 1 million mark were used as a benchmark for convertibility of BTC to BCP - at least, all BTC created before difficulty 1 million had diminished convertibility to BCP.  So 1 BTC created at difficulty 433000 would be worth 0.433 BCP.  1 BTC created at difficulty 1 would be worth a micro-BCP if the holder actually cared to convert it (they may as well not bother).  And mining either on BTC or BCP would essentially pay 50 of that currency, all of which would be convertible to BCP at face value as long as the BTC difficulty were at least 1000000.

We'll still have lots of fluctuations, but people worried about those millions of BTC out there can switch to BCP and extinguish them by essentially refusing to accept them, or rather, simply accepting them for how hard they were to create relative to mining difficulty 1000000.  Those who want to stick with BTC can keep using BTC, the market can freely decide what currency it wants to accept, not me.

You do realise that your Bitcoin2 will also have a "speculator's reward"?  Except that this reward won't go to the early adopters but to City boys at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.  Any major commodity that is freely floating and experiences price fluctuations, will attract speculators.  

Every time you fill up your car at the petrol station you are paying a "speculator's reward" to oil traders, because they were smart enough to bet on rising oil prices and you weren't.

Worrying about the supposed injustice of the Bitcoin "speculator's award" is silly. Specualtion is inevitable in a free market. You may as well worry about the weather.  

By the way, anyone who buys 1 BTC for 8 USD and sells it again for 8 USD (or buys products worth 8 USD), has given nothing to speculators.  The only time you pay a "tax" to speculators, early or otherwise, is when the exchange rate happens to drop between the time you buy BTC and spend BTC.  Bitcoin can, in theory, experience price deflation forever without collapsing like a Ponzi scheme. This price deflation would eventually reflect general economic growth.  Younger people would pay a "speculator's reward" to older people.  But once they get old, they would be receiving an even higher "speculator's reward" from the next generation, and so on.  This can go on indefinitely as long as the world economy keeps growing.

This new bitcoin client should have a difficulty level based on predicted computing increases in accordance to Moore's law.