Thank you Vitalik for joining the topic.
I value your idea, and ultimately your project will be - and start - how you wish it to be.
However I am a bit sad you got influenced by LeoC without thinking twice about what he wrote.
About proof of burn, you two are just wrong.
Let's not mix everything.
First, as mentioned by LeoC, proof of burn is a non-starter for our use case, because PoB cannot be independent. That is to say, with PoB an Ethereum client would need to also have a Bitcoin blockchain and would be dependent on the Bitcoin blockchain for validity checking. I absolutely do not want to have external dependencies in Ethereum
You both are confuse.
PoB is not equal to XCP. Counterparty is only a project using PoB for it's XCP distribution.
While I fully agree XCP cannot be independent, that just doesn't apply to PoB by itself. It's a choice.
LeoC has a fixation on XCP and answered about XCP where I was talking purely about PoB.
Basic example:
You take Next, instead of having an IPO, you start with PoB as only way to get NXT.
You end with a cryptocurrency
fully independent from all the other, relying only on PoS for security.
XCP is a metacoin. All metacoin are intrinsically dependent on another blockchain (whatever which one).
PoB is a method for wealth transfer and distribution in trustlessness. PoB is not a coin, even less a metacoin.
Absolutely nothing prevent Ethereum to use only PoB and remain 100% independent. It's a choice.
The reason PoB is a non-starter for most are completely other reason.
The main one are: money & 1-time all-coin-created model.
With regard to the "founders get some for free" factor, what people need to understand is that every currency, including BTC, QRK, MSC and Ripple, so far has privileged its founders in some fashion.
Not every currency. All except one. XCP.
I suppose the top1 reason that make dev disregarding PoB is that there is less quick/easy benefits for themselves & development instant$ reward/salary.
The main problem with PoB is that the dev, the betatester, the investor : EVERYONE is on the same level.
Some see that as a problem, some see it the opposite way, 'a much awaited change.
All have to risk destroying their money for a possible future gain.
The main problem with PoB compare to IPO is that you do not have the possibility of arbitrarily taking x% in order to reserve them for salaries or bounties.
In an over simplified way: dev works for free.
The only income they might get depend on the amount they burn, the work they provide, the success they help to give to their project, the community work toward this project, etc.
For work to be done:
- if bounties or salaries, it is from the dev pocket or from the community donation.
- otherwise it is for free. Dev, outside dev & everyone all helping each other to their level.
IPO & bounties/salaries are very capitalist-based. It's might be free speech (open source) but it's definitely not free beer. Only money matter.
With pure PoB, it's definitely closer to "free speech free beer".
The approach is completely different. It's another mind set. Another approach.
Suppose I'm a outside dev.
If dev chose IPO and made lots of money, sure as hell I wanna be paid for any work I give to help their project.
With pure PoB approach, I tell myself: wow the dev finance everything from the start with their own pocket.
Donation is optional, that make me want to give, at least a tiny little.
Working for free or very low immediate $reward? yes, I don't mind, it's fits my idea ideal.
I wish to support this project that's started on such awesome foundation.
It's a real communitarian project.
As Vitalik wrote "It is ultimately up to the community to decide whether or not this issuance model is valuable."
An issuance model can be more or less valuable.
But more than that, it's the idea that it represent that is valuable or not.
The Style - as I call it - has more or less value.
NXT crappy style of distribution (stopped without warning before end time leading on purpose to bad repartition) -> very bad style.
I deeply love the 100% PoS idea, but the style, the idea-reflected by NXTdev make that Next has absolutely no value to my eye.
It's in total contraction to my idea ideal, therefore I decided to never put money in it.
Missed a x27 train, whatever, at least I stay true to myself.
Of course the real end value is decided by the global community, not by a single individual.
It's up to every single one of you to make your own choice.
To support the idea or style that you prefer. In addition to risk, ROI, etc.
Of course having $25 millions for development will tend to make it move quicker.
It's the same analogy that microsoft vs GNU/Linux, all over again in a new context.
Do you wish to work for microsoft and be sure to be paid now?
Or do you wish to support the fundamental idea behind open source software?
Second option (PoB/no-boutie vs IPO/boutie) will very probably give you less money right now.
Yet imagine if a thousands dev choose the second option!
You can be pretty sure that on middle/long term, if the basic idea/project are good, everyone is gonna be awesomely rich.
The dev, the betatester, the burner, etc.
All on the same level: according to what you burn + the global work/pub/success.
I'm feed up writing about PoB. And most of those still reading are probably too.
So I'm gonna stop talking about PoB.
Just wished to make due correction and share my idea/ideal.
('can redirect people to this post in the future)
When you're putting BTC into a proof of burn, through the deflation effect you're effectively donating your money to large BTC early adopters.
You do not give them anything... Their BTC is not suddenly worth more. It's psychological.
At best it's stay as stable as now for them forever.
If Ethereum goal were really to remplace bitcoin, which actual capacities to do so: then Bitcoin ultimately will lose value compare to ether over time.
Not win. Scarcity alone doesn't fix any value.
Lot's of thing I wish to express about Ethereum itself. (this post was a bit off topic)
But it will be for another time.
I have a life outside this forum.
Anyway, best of luck to your project. Whatever it will concretely be at the end.
There is still space for communication with the community, and many possible amelioration.
